Oral
Answers to
Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Tourism: LIBOR Funding

Stewart McDonald: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the amount of LIBOR funding available to museums, galleries and tourist attractions in Scotland.

David Mundell: Lots of good causes across Scotland have put bids in to the Treasury for the next round of allocations from the LIBOR fund, but I am afraid we will need to be patient and wait for the Chancellor’s autumn statement this afternoon to hear which have been successful.

Stewart McDonald: The Secretary of State knows that there is no greater cause in my constituency than Holmwood House, a fine piece of Alexander “Greek” Thomson’s architecture. Next year is the bicentenary of his birth, and the Secretary of State knows how keen I am, and the Alexander Thomson Society is, to promote that, both around the UK and internationally. Will he assure me that the full weight of his office is behind making that happen?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman is to be commended for his efforts in promoting the bicentenary of Alexander “Greek” Thomson, who is perhaps an underappreciated icon of Scottish architecture. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—especially after my own visit to Holmwood House and meeting with the Alexander Thomson Society—that the UK Government will do all we can to support and promote that bicentenary.

Alan Brown: I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggesting that LIBOR money could be used to help fund opencast coal restoration in Scotland. Has the Secretary of State had any similar discussions with the Chancellor or has he done nothing about the opencast pledge in the 2015 Green Book?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman knows that I—and, indeed, the UK Government—have done a great deal to work with East Ayrshire Council to ensure that opencast restoration could proceed in that area following the collapse of various companies involved in  opencast mining. We continue that dialogue with both the Scottish Government and East Ayrshire Council to try bring the matter to a satisfactory resolution.

John Stevenson: rose—

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman was a bit tardy in standing, but we will hear the fellow anyway.

John Stevenson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Scotland has some wonderful tourist attractions, many of which are in the border region and Cumbria. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are real opportunities to promote tourism in the border areas, but that that will involve close co-operation between councils on both sides of the border, and is not just about finance?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend knows that I am very keen to promote cross-border working between Cumbria County Council, his own local authority, Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council. That is why I am a very big supporter of the so-called borderlands initiative to bring those councils together to try to secure economic development for the area, in which tourism would play a very important part.

Scotland Act 2016

Stewart Jackson: What progress has been made on the transfer of powers to the Scottish Government under the provisions of the Scotland Act 2016.

David Mundell: We have made significant progress in transferring powers in the Scotland Act 2016 to the Scottish Parliament. A large number of provisions of the Act are already in force and we are continuing to work with the Scottish Government on the smooth transition of remaining powers.

Stewart Jackson: The Scottish National party Government have failed to introduce a single piece of legislation in the past six months; the First Minister prefers grandstanding across Europe to block Brexit. Is it not time she used the powers devolved to her under the Act to start governing, rather than engaging in pointless photo opportunities?

David Mundell: I can update my hon. Friend. The Scottish Government have now brought forward one piece of legislation since the Scottish parliamentary elections in May. He may be interested to know that this Government currently have 19 pieces of proposed legislation before this Parliament. Of course I agree with him, and I think the majority of people in Scotland want the First Minister and the Scottish Government to get on with their day job of running Scotland and seeing to the devolved responsibilities, rather than constantly talking about independence.

Angus Robertson: The Scottish Government have announced that the new powers over benefits will be used to end the misery being meted out to disabled Scots by the UK Government. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has pledged to reduce the need for assessments for personal independence payments and disability living allowance, in particular for those with  long-term illness. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to welcome that and urge his UK Cabinet colleagues to follow suit?

David Mundell: What I will welcome when I see it is some detail behind those fine words. We have heard lots and lots of fine words on welfare, but to date we have absolutely no detail as to what the Scottish Government plan to do.

Angus Robertson: I suppose we should view it as progress that the Secretary of State believes they are fine words, and perhaps he will follow the Scottish Government’s initiative, but it is fair to say that the majority of welfare and economic powers are not being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has no plans to devolve powers to deal with Scottish legal partnerships, and the risks they pose in the fight against global money-laundering and organised crime? I have raised this matter with the Prime Minister and spoken to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he now tell the House what he and the UK Government will actually do about it?

David Mundell: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the settlement in the Scotland Act 2016 was the outcome of the Smith Commission. The Scottish legal partnerships issue was not a part of that arrangement and will not be devolved, but I take it extremely seriously. I commend him for the way in which he has highlighted it in this House and elsewhere, and I commend The Herald for the way in which it has highlighted the issue. Colleagues in the UK Government are looking at how we can best take the situation forward to end the abuses, which are evident.

Iain Stewart: I was concerned to read in The Sunday Times that the Scottish Government are delaying the introduction of the devolved welfare powers. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether that is the case?

David Mundell: All Members have access to the minutes of the last meeting of the joint welfare group between myself and Scottish Government Ministers. Those minutes confirm that the introduction of the welfare powers in Scotland is indeed being delayed, potentially until 2020.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Secretary of State consider the transfer of power on visas to the Scottish Government? In the Outer Hebrides, fishing boats are currently tied up because the UK Government will not enable non-EEA fishermen to come in and work on them. People are welcome and are required, but they are blocked from economic activity by the UK Government. This threatens jobs and industries in the Outer Hebrides. Will he act and do something about it, or will he do nothing as usual?

David Mundell: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which others have also expressed. There are specific rules on who can work on fishing boats, but immigration remains a reserved issue and the responsibility of the Home Office.

Steve Pound: It is always a pleasure to follow Hurricane Angus. Mr Speaker, may I thank you for your generous indulgence in allowing me to appear at the Dispatch Box in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who is simply unable to be with us today? I have been immersing myself in Scottish legislation—and Irn-Bru—over the past week.
Many of us on the Labour Benches would give our eye teeth to have the powers contained in the Scotland Act 2016. Does the Secretary of State feel that the apparent reluctance of the Scottish Government to take more advantage of them indicates a surfeit of modesty, or, possibly, a lack of ambition?

David Mundell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box at Scottish questions on behalf of the Labour party. The one question I have is, “Who next?” because we have had a selection of individuals. I say to the hon. Gentleman that these are very significant powers over tax and welfare. The autumn statement in this House is a very important event, but on 15 December we will see the Scottish Budget. For the first time, the Scottish Government will be able to raise income tax at their will in the Scottish Budget. That is a very significant moment in terms of taking responsibility and accountability.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Paul Blomfield: What steps he is taking to ensure that Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises are protected from economic uncertainty.

Margot James: The Government will continue to provide an environment where small and medium-sized enterprises everywhere can thrive. That means cutting red tape, keeping taxes low, tackling late payment and improving access to finance. We are committed to ensuring the whole of the UK is a great place to start and grow a business.

Paul Blomfield: Figures produced by the Scottish Government show that SMEs constitute 99% of all private sector enterprise and more than 50% of employment in Scotland. If the economy suffers any form of setback—and the Chancellor is predicting one—these enterprises will be hardest hit. Given their importance, what is the Minister doing to reduce uncertainty and to support their growth?

Margot James: The UK economy is strong in spite of uncertainty. Scottish SMEs currently benefit from nearly £400 million of investment from the British Business Bank and Innovate UK aimed at helping them to grow and capitalise on new technologies and new export markets.

Craig Tracey: Does the Minister agree, given that the UK market is four times the size of the EU market in Scotland, that  it is clear why businesses are saying loud and clear  that they do not want talk of another independence referendum, but instead want stability to strengthen  the economy?

Margot James: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. SMEs in Scotland trade four times as much within the single market of the United Kingdom than with the EU. Indeed, they trade more with markets in the rest of the world than across the entire EU.

Ian Murray: One of the key things that the Scottish and UK Governments could do to take away uncertainty for SMEs and businesses across Scotland is to take a second independence referendum off the table. Something else the Government could do—I hope we will hear this in the autumn statement—is conclude the Edinburgh city deal. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor to make sure we hear that in the next few minutes?

Margot James: I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for that city deal, but we will have to wait another hour for more detail, and I could not agree more that the uncertainty in Scotland is coming far more from talk of another referendum than from the outcome of the EU referendum.

Phil Boswell: Yesterday it was announced that over 500 jobs in the Tannochside area of my constituency were under threat, as Ageas Kwik Fit Insurance has announced plans to axe its entire Scottish operation. If these plans proceed, it will be a devastating blow to the local community just before Christmas. What assistance can the Secretary of State and his Government provide for these constituents and families at this difficult time?

Margot James: Obviously this will be a very difficult time for the Kwik Fit workforce and their families, particularly in the run-up to Christmas, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I understand that Kwik Fit is consulting on closure by the end of next March, and I hope that the affected workers will quickly be able to move into alternative employment. The UK Government will assist with support from the Jobcentre Plus rapid reaction service, working also with North Lanarkshire Council, to help all those being made redundant.

Bob Blackman: Given the importance of exports to England from Scotland, what is my hon. Friend’s estimate of the number of jobs involved in this process, and does that figure not demonstrate the importance to Scotland and its economy of staying in the UK?

John Bercow: The answer should relate specifically to SMEs, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman intended  to mention.

Margot James: The unemployment rate in Scotland is lower than that in the rest of the UK, and SMEs in Scotland, as my hon. Friend points out, benefit from this trend as much as any other businesses in Scotland.

Steve Pound: On 12 October, in response to a question about the deal struck with Nissan, the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and said—you can probably quote it verbatim, Mr Speaker—that
“whatever support is put in place for businesses in the north of England will apply to businesses in Scotland.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 287.]
Is the Secretary of State or the Minister willing to confirm that this is still the case? If so, will they provide us with more detail of the support? SMEs need to know.

Margot James: My right hon. Friend was exactly right in what he said about the Nissan deal. The same level of support will indeed be available to Scottish businesses, but, as for the detail, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait another hour for the autumn statement.

Steve Pound: I am very grateful to the Minister, especially for my promotion to the Privy Council. I welcome her commitment, which I am sure will reassure SMEs and businesses of all sizes, but there must have been an analysis of the costs. What assessment has been made of the cost of this support?

Margot James: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making an assessment of the costs and the benefits of all such deals on an ongoing basis.

EU Convergence Uplift Funding

Steven Paterson: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on achieving a fair allocation of the convergence uplift funding from the EU.

George Eustice: The Secretary of State for Scotland has had numerous discussions with me about the intra-UK budget allocations under the common agricultural policy. I have also had discussions on this issue with the National Farmers Union Scotland, Scottish Members of Parliament and the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity.

Steven Paterson: The convergence uplift is worth €230 million, and the UK Government are withholding that money, which should be supporting Scotland’s rural economy. Scotland’s farmers deserve fairness. When will Scotland’s man in Cabinet, by which I mean the Secretary of State for Scotland, do something about this, or will he continue to do nothing?

George Eustice: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that we will provide an update on the review of CAP allocations before the end of this year. I add that the context has changed fundamentally, following the decision to leave the EU. Some argue that the area-based payments as required under the CAP have never suited Scotland very well. Indeed, NFU Scotland has previously raised concerns about the level of payments going to very large landowners, arguing that we should instead direct support to farmers and producers through livestock payments. We now have an opportunity to look at all of these issues, and I shall work closely on that with NFU Scotland and its talented team of officials.

Calum Kerr: What we really seek in Scottish questions is the confirmation that the Secretary of State for Scotland  backs Scottish farmers and will get this promised money delivered. It is fantastic that we have the Minister with responsibility for farming here, but all we have heard so far is no detail and “just warm words”, to quote the Secretary of State. Can we have the detail put in place and give Scottish farmers what they deserve?

George Eustice: I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As I made clear, the Secretary of State for Scotland discusses this issue with me regularly. I am passionate about Scotland, and I have discussed this issue with NFU Scotland from January onwards. We are working on joint proposals and joint agreements as regards post-Brexit agricultural policy.

Leaving the EU

Victoria Atkins: What discussions he has had with Scottish businesses and other groups on the UK’s negotiations to leave the EU.

Margot James: Since the referendum, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held 60 meetings with well over 100 Scottish organisations to hear their views. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has met businesses in Aberdeen, while the Minister for Trade has met business leaders in Edinburgh.

Victoria Atkins: Will my hon. Friend encourage Scottish businesses to seize the opportunities of our new relationship with Europe and the wider world, including, of course, my own constituency of Louth and Horncastle? Will she urge the Scottish Government to support their businesses, stop moaning about referendums and get on with governing?

Margot James: I thank my hon. Friend, and I am happy to give that encouragement. The message that the UK Government have heard loud and clear is that businesses in Scotland want stability and not another divisive referendum. Talk of independence is disruptive. What people want now is the economic stability that can be provided only by Scotland remaining in the UK.

John Bercow: I call Stuart C. McDonald.

Stuart McDonald: I have No. 12, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Spit it out, man. Come in on this question; yours was similar.

Stuart McDonald: In July, the party leader of the Secretary of State told the BBC:

Margot James: There was no U-turn whatever on that. The UK Government will seek the best possible deal for all parts of the United Kingdom. That will include limits on free movement and the best possible access to, and trade within, the single market for  British companies.

Ian Lucas: The creative industries in Scotland are one of the most successful areas of Scottish business, but there is real concern about the regulatory regime that Ofcom presides over and about what the future relationship with the European Union will look like. What discussions has the Minister had concerning that regulatory regime?

Margot James: My ministerial colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will have had discussions, and I will ask one of them to notify the hon. Gentleman of their outcome.

Alistair Carmichael: In the Northern Isles some of our most important exporting businesses are in the very successful food and drink sector, but representatives of the sector tell me that it is almost impossible for them to plan for their future until they know what access they will have to EU markets. Will the Minister ensure that their voices are heard in these negotiations, as well as those of the big boys in financial services and the automotive industries?

Margot James: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has regular meetings with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry and the agricultural sector, and Ministers throughout the Government engage in many discussions with representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association about how they can continue to build on the strengths of their exports beyond the EU as well as within the single market.

Margaret Ferrier: During a live televised debate two days before the Brexit vote, Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said that the EU provided “a level playing field” for small businesses, and that if the UK were to leave the EU, the rest of the EU would impose tariffs and taxes. Will the Minister please tell us how many of the 1.2 million jobs provided by small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland she estimates will be at risk from those tariffs and taxes once they come into force?

Margot James: As I have said, the Government are committed to gaining maximum access to the single market and trade within it for all British companies, and that includes Scottish SMEs.

John Bercow: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. A number of very loud private conversations are taking place. Let us have some order for a very senior and respected Member of the House of 33 years’ standing, Sir David Amess.

Food and Drink Industry

David Amess: What discussions the Government have had with food and drink companies in Scotland on the importance of the UK market for that industry.

George Eustice: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland held round-table discussions with representatives of the Scottish food and drink industry in August and October, and my right  hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met representatives of a range of food and drink businesses during her visit to Scotland earlier this month.

David Amess: Given that Scotch whisky is the finest in the world and such a valuable export, does my hon. Friend agree that the UK’s decision to leave the European Union may result in even more opportunities?

George Eustice: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Scotch whisky is a fantastic success story for this country: in 2015, overseas sales were worth £3.9 billion. Earlier this year I attended an event in Tokyo to promote great British drinks, including Scotch whisky, which is particularly popular in Japan.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: rose—

Hear, hear!

John Bercow: Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady has ever fully realised the extent of her own popularity on the Government Benches.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Is the Secretary of State aware that the value of exports from the rest of the UK to Scotland is more than £50 billion? That is more than the value of Scotland’s exports to the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, regardless of any constitutional arrangements that may be made in the future, the trading relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is important to both constituent parts?

George Eustice: I think that what the hon. Lady has said underlines the fact that the union that is really vital to this country is the United Kingdom, because there is very close trade within it.

Independent Fiscal Commission

Ranil Jayawardena: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the work of the Independent Fiscal Commission.

David Mundell: I have regular meetings with Scottish Government Ministers. I last met the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Constitution at the Finance Quadrilateral on 21 October. Both Governments are committed to providing all necessary support for the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Ranil Jayawardena: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a core principle of stable, accountable, mature government that Governments must not fiddle their own forecasts, but must instead answer for their choices, and the consequences of those choices, to the people whom they govern?

David Mundell: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and the transfer of income tax and welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament does just that. No longer will the SNP and the Scottish Government simply be able to  complain. If they genuinely have ideas, they will be able to do something about it, and the people of Scotland will understand the tax implications.

John Nicolson: Exports from the services sector could be cut by 60% if the UK is out of the single market. That would result in a £2.3 billion hit for Scotland. Given that, can the Secretary of State tell us why his Conservative colleagues at Holyrood voted against the Scottish Government motion to protect Scotland’s position?

John Bercow: With reference to the work of the Independent Fiscal Commission, I call the Minister to answer.

David Mundell: I am sure that the Independent Fiscal Commission will have noted that my colleagues in the Conservative group in Holyrood voted against the SNP’s motion because we have absolutely no idea where the SNP stands in relation to the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Peter Grant: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 23 November.

Theresa May: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Peter Grant: “Bairns come first” is the title of a report recently produced by a number of organisations, including Fife Gingerbread and Citizens Advice and Rights Fife. It found that a third of families who should have been claiming child maintenance support did not apply, that a major barrier to applying was the £20 application fee, and that the 4% collection fee had a serious impact on family budgets. Will the Prime Minister undertake to review those unfair charges?

Theresa May: Trying to ensure that those responsible for children actually pay for their children when a family has broken up has been a long-standing question which this House has addressed. There have been various ways of dealing with it through the agency that has been responsible. It is right that the changes that have been introduced are on a more level basis and more people are able to access the support they need as a result.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Government have rightly focused on economic growth, jobs and prosperity—something all of us on the Conservative Benches can get behind. With that in mind, will the Prime Minister back our highly competitive bid for funding for the north-west relief road in Shrewsbury, which will not only deal with the congestion our town is facing but dovetail into that narrative?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I know that the issue of the north-west relief road in Shrewsbury has been of particular concern to him; it is a priority for him and it has received considerable local backing. I understand that the local Marches LEP has put in a bid for feasibility funding so that it can prepare a business case for the scheme. What I can say at the moment is that the announcement of the successful bids for feasibility funding is expected very shortly indeed.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Government’s sustainability and transformation plans for the national health service hide £22 billion of cuts to our service, according to research by the British Medical Association. That risks
“starving services of resources and patients of vital care.”
That quote comes from Dr Mark Porter of the BMA. When he calls this process “a mess”, where is he wrong?

Theresa May: The national health service is indeed looking for savings within the NHS which will be reinvested in the NHS, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is this Government who are providing not just the £8 billion of extra funding that the NHS requested, but £10 billion of extra funding. Sustainability and transformation plans are being developed at local level in the interests of local people by local clinicians.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is very strange that the Prime Minister should say that, because the Select Committee on Health, chaired by her hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), says that the figure is actually £4.5 billion, not £10 billion; there is quite a big difference there.
Part of the reason for the strain on our national health service is that more than 1 million people are not receiving the social care they need. As a result of that, there has been an increase in emergency admissions for older patients. Margaret wrote to me this week—[Interruption.] It is not funny. She described how her 89-year-old mother suffered two falls leading to hospital admissions due to the lack of nursing care, and went on to say,
“My mother is worth more than this.”
What action will the Prime Minister take to stop the neglect of older people, which ends up forcing them into A&E admissions when they should be cared for at home or in a care home?

Theresa May: Of course social care is an area of concern, and it is a key issue for many people. That is why the Government have introduced the better care fund and the social care precept for local authorities, and why we are encouraging the health service and local authorities to work together to deal with precisely the social care and bed blocking issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
We have introduced the better care fund and the social care precept, but let us just look at what the Labour Government did in their 13 years. They said that they would deal with social care in their 1997 manifesto. They introduced a royal commission in 1999, a Green Paper in 2005 and the Wanless review in 2006.   They said they would sort it in the comprehensive spending review of 2007, and produced another Green Paper in 2009. Thirteen years, and they did nothing.

Jeremy Corbyn: As the Prime Minister well knows, health spending trebled under the last Labour Government and the levels of satisfaction with the health service were at their highest ever in 2010. This Government’s choice was to cut social care by £4.6 billion in the last Parliament, at the same time as they found the space, shall we say, to cut billions from corporate taxation bills. This is affecting patients leaving hospital as well. In the last four years, the number of patients unable to be transferred from hospital due to the lack of adequate social care has increased by one third. Will the Prime Minister ensure that her Government will guarantee all our elderly people the dignity they deserve?

Theresa May: I recognise the importance of caring for elderly people and providing them with the dignity they deserve. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Government have done nothing on social care, but I repeat that we have introduced the social care precept, which is being made use of by my local authorities and by his local authority. We have also introduced the better care fund. He talks about support for elderly people, but let me remind him which Government it  was who put in place the triple lock for pensioners.  That has ensured the largest increase in pensions for elderly people.

Jeremy Corbyn: The precept is a drop in the ocean compared with what is necessary for social care. I shall give Members an example. I am sure the whole House will have been appalled by the revelations in the BBC’s “Panorama” programme this week. They showed older people being systematically mistreated. The Care Quality Commission’s assessment is that the care homes run by the Morleigh Group “require improvement”, and it has issued warning notices. The commission goes on to say that the owner
“has allowed the services to deteriorate even further. She has utterly neglected her duty of care to the residents of these homes.”
What action are the Government going to take to protect the residents of those homes?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the quality of care that is provided in homes and the way in which elderly people are treated. I am sure everybody is appalled when we see examples of poor and terrible treatment being given to elderly and vulnerable people in care homes. What we do about it is ensure that the Care Quality Commission is able to step in and take action and that it has powers to ensure that nobody in the chain of responsibility is immune from legal accountability. We know that there is more that can be done, and that is why the CQC is looking into ways of improving its processes and increasing its efficiency. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), the Minister for community health and care, will be writing to the CQC shortly to see how we can improve what it does. It is the CQC that deals with these issues, and we have that in place. Is there more we can do? Yes, and we are doing it.

Jeremy Corbyn: The problem seems to be that that home was understaffed. We should not blame often underpaid and hard-pressed care workers; we should be ensuring that there are enough of them—properly paid— in all such homes. There was a serious problem of understaffing, and it was the last Labour Government who established the CQC. A warning notice is insufficient —we need stronger action than that.
Yesterday, the Government proposed that patients may have to show passports or other ID to access non-emergency healthcare. Have the Government considered the impact on elderly people? The last census showed us that 9.5 million people in this country do not have passports. Instead of distracting people with divisive, impractical policies, could the Prime Minister provide the NHS and social care with the money that it needs to care for the people who need the support?

Theresa May: Over this Parliament, the Government will be spending half a trillion pounds on the national health service. The right hon. Gentleman asks about a process to ensure that people who are receiving NHS treatment are entitled to receive that NHS treatment. For many years, there has been concern about health tourism and about people turning up in the UK and accessing health services but not paying for them. We want to ensure not only that those who are entitled to use the services are indeed able to see them free at the point of delivery, but that we deal with health tourism and those who should be paying for the use of our health service.

Jeremy Corbyn: Simon Stevens told us two weeks ago that the next three years will be the toughest ever for NHS funding and that 2018 would see health spending per person cut for the first time ever in this country. The National Audit Office has reported that the cost of health tourism is over a hundred times less than the £22 billion of cuts that the NHS faces from this Government. The reality is that under this Government there are 6,000 fewer mental health nurses and a record 3.9 million people on NHS waiting lists. All of us who visit A&E departments know the stress that staff are under and that waiting times are getting longer and longer. One million people in this country are not receiving the social care that they need. Instead of looking for excuses and scapegoats, should not the Prime Minister be ensuring that health and social care is properly resourced and properly funded, to take away the stress and fear that people face in old age and the stress that is placed on our very hard-working NHS and social care staff?

Theresa May: Billions of pounds extra into social care through the social care precept and the better care fund; half a trillion pounds being spent on the national health service; a record level of investment in mental health in the national health service—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Members must not shout down or attempt to shout down the Prime Minister. The question has been asked and was heard, and the answer must be heard.

Theresa May: There is a fundamental point that the right hon. Gentleman refrains from mentioning: we can afford to pay for the national health service and  for social care only if we have a strong economy creating wealth, and that is precisely what he is going to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a few minutes’ time.

Gordon Henderson: On 23 June, my constituents voted by a margin of 62% to 28% to leave the European Union. Many of those people are unhappy and frustrated by what they see as delaying tactics from some remainers, who do not seem to understand the meaning of the word “democracy”—

John Bercow: Order. This is very discourteous. The hon. Gentleman has a legitimate question and it and every other question should be heard fully and with politeness.

Gordon Henderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker—and I will repeat it. Some remainers do not seem to understand the meaning of the word “democracy”, which I would remind them is government by the people, especially the rule of the majority. With that in mind, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give my constituents and me that article 50 will be triggered by March next year?

Theresa May: I am clear that we will trigger article 50 by the end of March next year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the key point: it was decided by this Parliament, six to one, that the people should have the opportunity to vote on membership of the European Union. The vote was held, the turnout was high and the public gave their verdict. There must be no second referendum and no attempt to weasel out of this, and this is the Government who will deliver on the vote of the British people.

Angus Robertson: We on the Scottish National party Benches have repeatedly brought up the issue of the devastating impact on disabled people of the UK benefits system. The Government plan to cut support for people with long-term health difficulties by £30 a week. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) proposed a motion, which was passed by this House with support from both Labour and Conservative Members, for these cuts to be postponed. Will the Prime Minister act on the vote of this House?

Theresa May: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what we have been doing in relation to benefits for disabled people: the overall funding for disability benefits will be higher in every year up to 2020 than it was in 2010; we have been focusing support on those who most need it—those who are not able to get into the workplace; and for those who are able, at some stage, to get into the workplace, we have been providing a wider package of support. I am pleased to say that over the last three years nearly 600,000 more disabled people are now in the workplace, with the dignity of having a job, which is what many people with disabilities want to have. So we are focusing help on those who most need it and helping those with disabilities who want to get into the workplace to do just that.

Angus Robertson: But it is widely trailed that the Prime Minister will make changes that will impact on benefit recipients in work. Will she confirm that she has no intention of helping people with disabilities and  medical conditions? Why should people who are unable to earn a living be punished for their disability or illness by losing £30 a week? Does she have any intention of changing that?

Theresa May: I have just set out for the right hon. Gentleman the ways in which we are providing support and help for those people who have disabilities. As I said, the overall spending on disability benefits will be higher in every year to 2020 than it was in 2010. But it is also important to recognise that when we give support for people with disabilities, it is not simply about the benefits system and how much money they are given; for those who are able to get into work and are on that part of the employment and support allowance, we provide packages that are outside the benefits as well, because we recognise that people want the dignity of getting into the workplace. That is what we are helping people with disabilities who can work to do.

Simon Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that thousands of road commuters, including many of my constituents who use the A12, are travelling on roads that need to be repaired and upgraded? To improve connectivity and to speed up daily commute times, does she accept that the proposed £1.3 billion investment in improving our road network is warmly welcome and will do a great deal to enhance connectivity in the country?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of infrastructure expenditure in helping to deal with productivity in our economy, and I am pleased that that £1.3 billion for new roads does show us investing in the long-term future for Britain. It is about delivering jobs and economic growth, and about making sure that this economy works for everyone. It is just one part of the package that we are proposing, but of course my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be setting our proposals out more clearly in a few minutes’ time.

Tulip Siddiq: My constituent Nazanin Ratcliffe, a British national, is in prison in Iran. She has been separated from her husband and her two-year-old daughter for eight months. She has been on hunger strike and is now suicidal. The Prime Minister needs to reunite this mother, this daughter and this wife with her family. Will it take Nazanin’s death for the Government to start taking her seriously?

Theresa May: Obviously, this is a very difficult time for the whole family. I am sure that we are all concerned about the reports of the impact that detention in Iran is having on Nazanin Ratcliffe’s health. This is an issue that has repeatedly been raised with the Iranian Government by the UK Government—by both the previous Foreign Secretary and the current Foreign Secretary. I personally raised it with President Rouhani on 20 September in New York, and I stressed the importance of finding a resolution as soon as possible. I have since written to President Rouhani requesting confirmation of the charges, the sentence and the appeals process, and I have asked for assurances that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe will be allowed full legal representation and regular contact with her family. We will continue to do everything that we can for the family and that includes  the British Government remaining ready to help to bring back Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s daughter to Britain if that is the request.

Peter Lilley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of our social problems are either caused or aggravated by the acute shortage of housing, so even if we manage to reduce the net immigration to this country, as I hope we will, we will have to build far more new homes? Is not the recommendation by the European Banking Authority to increase by 50% the reserves that banks must hold against house building, which makes it even more costly for them to lend for housing than for unsecured credit cards, profoundly unhelpful and perverse?

Theresa May: I am sure my right hon. Friend will recognise that we are subject to our own Prudential Regulation Authority, but the overall point that he makes about the importance of house building is absolutely correct. We do need to build more homes. That is something that the Government have been doing. We have seen something like 900,000 new homes being built since 2010, but there is more for us to do, and that is what this Government are working on.

Angela Smith: The Brexit Secretary and the Foreign Secretary are described by a senior German politician as having no idea what Brexit really means. reports today that EU ambassadors think that the Foreign Secretary’s more colourful outbursts are damaging our relationships with member states. When will the Prime Minister get a grip on her Ministers and demonstrate to the country and to our EU colleagues that she has a coherent, workable plan for Brexit?

Theresa May: I have been very clear in this House on many occasions about the plan that we have for Brexit. Crucially, we will be leaving the European Union and we will be triggering article 50 by the end of March next year, and that is when the formal negotiations will start. It is absolutely right that we do not set out at this stage every single detail of our proposed negotiating strategy, because that would be the best way to get the worst possible deal for Britain.

Cheryl Gillan: As we leave the European Union, maintaining the UK’s cutting edge and world leadership in scientific and technological discovery is of paramount importance to our industries and universities. May I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that, each year, we will invest a further £2 billion in research and development to boost our science and engineering base? Is not this just the type of vital support that our businesses and researchers need, rather than the threats from the Labour party to slash the R and D tax credits, which would hamper innovation and harm our economy?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The extra investment that we will be putting into research and development is a crucial part of our long-term task of ensuring that we have the economy and the growth and prosperity that we need in this country. The new funds will help to put us at the cutting edge of scientific discovery. That is already happening. I visited the Wellcome Genome Campus in Cambridge on Monday  and saw for myself the really exciting and transformational work that is being done, and it is coming out of the knowledge base and the scientific research of the United Kingdom. We want to see more of that, which is why we will be investing in it.

John Woodcock: Aleppo’s hospitals are destroyed and Syrians who avoid the barrel bombs and the chlorine gas are starving from the Russian-backed blockade. We must do more. Will the Prime Minister revisit the prospect for aid drops, and will she look at backing the campaign to stop this daily perpetrator of war crimes by stripping it of its right to hold the 2018 World cup?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the appalling atrocities that are taking place in Aleppo, and it is right that we, along with our international allies, should be doing all that we can to try to bring this to a stop. He will recognise that the issue of who hosts sporting events is not in the Government’s remit. What is in the Government’s remit and what we are doing, as I say, is working with our international allies to put more pressure on Russia to stop the appalling atrocities—the appalling attacks—that are taking place in Aleppo. What we want to see is an agreement for a political transition to a Syria without President Assad.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the UK is to remain competitive and our citizens are to enjoy the benefits of the digital revolution, it is essential that we should be at the forefront of the deployment of both ultra-fast broadband and 5G mobile connectivity? May I therefore welcome the announcement, which we are led to believe may be made shortly, of a £1 billion investment to achieve this?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend will, of course, be waiting in anticipation for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s autumn statement, but he is absolutely right that, as we look at improving productivity in this country and as we look to the economy of the future, the provision of superfast broadband and those new technological opportunities for people is absolutely a crucial part of that, and that is something that this Government recognise and will act on.

Holly Lynch: One day last week, four police officers in my constituency were assaulted over a single 24-hour period. There were over 23,000 assaults on police officers last year, and an assault on a police officer is an assault on society. What will the Prime Minister do to ensure that the toughest deterrents are in place to protect front-line officers, and when will she reduce the need for unsafe single crewing by restoring the number of police on our streets?

Theresa May: May I send our best wishes to those police officers who were assaulted in the hon. Lady’s constituency last week? It is important that we recognise that when police officers go out on duty—and, indeed, for many off duty—they sometimes find themselves intervening in situations where they are on the receiving end of assaults and violence against them. They are willing to go forward in the line of duty, where others are not, and we recognise that. One of the things we  want to do in relation to this is to identify rather better the number of assaults that are taking place. That is why last year we issued some provisional figures. We are improving those figures now this year. Sentencing guidelines already allow for an assault on a police officer to be taken as an aggravating factor into account, but also new developments, like the body-worn videos, actually help to provide the evidence that ensures that people can be brought to justice and that actually deter assaults in the first place.

Andrew Murrison: I know that the Prime Minister shares my concern at the level of acute hospital bed blocking. Does she agree that part of the solution is to promote community hospital beds, where they still exist in places such as Warminster and Shaftesbury, as part of the sustainability and transformation planning process?

Theresa May: As regards the STP process, of course, that will take place at local level—it will be at the local level that these proposals will be considered and put forward by local clinicians—but the concept of being able to deal with bed blocking in a variety of ways is absolutely right. There are good examples around the country of where having those step-down beds available is actually resolving the problem of bed blocking. There are other ways in which that is being done—in those parts of the country where social workers are being employed by hospital trusts, for example. But is it very good to recognise the good practice when it is being done, and we shall see more of that across the country.

Tom Elliott: Earlier this month, IRA man turned lawyer, Kieran Conway, confessed to the BBC that he took part in robberies, bombings and gun attacks that murdered British soldiers. He stated that he will never disclose information on any fellow IRA man, despite knowing details of IRA actions that he defines as constituting war crimes. Can the Prime Minister assure me that Her Majesty’s Government will apply for the extradition of this terrorist for questioning from the Republic of Ireland?

Theresa May: The question of whether or not an individual would be extradited or a request would be made for extradition is for the appropriate investigation and prosecution authorities to decide. We do, of course, recognise the concerns about those cases where it is still possible to bring people to justice, and obviously we want to see that being done.

John Stevenson: During the past six years we have had three major referendums, all eliciting varying degrees of excitement. Does the Prime Minister agree that one can have too much excitement, and will she therefore rule out any further referendums in this Parliament?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me down a particular route. One thing that I will certainly rule out is a second referendum on whether we leave the European Union.

Kirsty Blackman: Aberdeen Cyrenians have launched a financial appeal because of the increasing number of people finding themselves homeless as a direct result of the UK Government’s pursuit of austerity. How can the Prime  Minister sleep in her warm bed at night knowing that her Government’s policies have consigned people to a cold Christmas?

Theresa May: The Government are taking action in a variety of ways to address homelessness. One of the key things we need to do is ensure that we see more homes being built in this country. The hon. Lady talks about austerity in the tone that she uses, but austerity is about us living within our means. When we talk about the Government providing support for individuals, we should always remember that taxpayers have to pay for that support, and many taxpayers are themselves struggling to get by.

Kevin Foster: The Prime Minister will be aware that yesterday the Peninsula Rail Task Force launched its report, which was commissioned following the storms that severed Devon and Cornwall’s vital rail link, just as our vital rail link was severed again, this time by flooding. Does she welcome the report and will she commit the Government to ensuring that the vision it outlines is delivered?

Theresa May: May I suggest that my hon. Friend exercises a little more patience and listens very carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has to say?

Wayne David: In these uncertain times we would all surely agree that Britain needs strong defence, so how can the Prime Minister justify her Government’s decision to scrap all the Navy’s heavyweight surface-to-surface guided missiles without any replacement?

Theresa May: I do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman presents of what the Government are doing in relation to the armed forces. We are investing billions of pounds in ensuring that our armed forces do have the missiles, the ships for the Royal Navy and the other pieces of equipment for the other armed forces. The picture that he presents is not the picture I recognise.

Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be good for confidence in the rule of law if judges did not enter into speculative public thoughts on cases that they are about to hear?

Theresa May: In this country we value the independence of our judiciary—that is, the independence of members of the judiciary when they come to make their judgments in court. Also, they are independent and it is for them to determine what they choose to put in their speeches. It is not for the Government to tell them what to do.

Tim Farron: As millions of public sector workers face another year  of suppressed pay, after another week of shambolic Brexit negotiations, and with the national health service facing a winter crisis and crying out for cash, does the Prime Minister worry that her Government are only just about managing?

Theresa May: We are very clear about the amounts of money that we are putting into the national health service. The hon. Gentleman talks about the negotiations. Actually, the negotiations for us leaving the European Union do not formally start until we  trigger article 50. We will trigger article 50 by the end of March next year. The hon. Gentleman wants to stop us leaving the European Union by denying the people the decision and the deliverability of the vote that they took, rightly, on 23 June. He wants to deny people what they want; we are going to give it to them.

Charlie Elphicke: May I raise with the Prime Minister the concerns of millions of drivers and hauliers across the United Kingdom who worry about the cost of driving and fuel duty? Will the Government look at keeping that down? Will they also look at how forecourt pricing has worked as the oil price changes? The prices jump like a rocket and fall like a feather.

Theresa May: I recognise that, as my hon. Friend says, many people look with very great concern at the cost of motoring in this country. I suggest, as I have to some of my other hon. Friends, that he should be a little more patient and wait for the Chancellor’s autumn statement.

Angela Eagle: The Prime Minister has talked about her worries about social care, but surely we have to judge her by her actions. In the last six years there has been an average 37% cut in local authority funding—57% in my area—and nearly a quarter of all those older people in need of social care have been denied any help at all. What is she going to do about it?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady might have noticed that I have been asked several questions about social care—[Interruption]—and I will give the answer that I have given previously. What the Government are doing about social care is to put more money in through the better care fund, to give local authorities the opportunity that is in the social care precept and to make sure that health and social care come together to ensure that we deal with the issue of bed blocking.

Richard Drax: How many of us would charge into a darkened store at night knowing that inside were three mask-wearing, crowbar-wielding thugs trying to rob it? My two constituents, Nigel Dunmore and Grant McGarry, did just that; as a result of their intervention, the thugs fled, leaving the money, and the staff were hurt less, although one of the gentlemen was himself hurt. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising their courage and selflessness in carrying out this extraordinary act of bravado?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I commend the bravery and courage shown by those two individuals—Nigel and Grant, I think he said—who stepped into that situation to ensure that it was not as bad as it might have been. That is incredible bravery; many members of the public would not have been willing to step forward in that way. Will he pass my best wishes—and the best wishes of the whole House, I am sure—on to those individuals?

Gloria De Piero: Does the Prime Minister believe that big companies should put a worker on the board?

Theresa May: I believe that we should see workers’ representation on boards. I make no apology for the fact that this Government are going to deliver on that. For all its years in government, the Labour party did nothing.

AUTUMN STATEMENT

Philip Hammond: It is a privilege to report today on an economy that the International Monetary Fund predicts will be the fastest-growing major advanced economy in the world this year. It is an economy with employment at a record high and unemployment at an 11-year low; and an economy that, through the hard work of the British people, has bounced back from the depths of Labour’s recession. It is an economy that has confounded commentators at home and abroad with its strength and resilience since the British people decided, exactly five months ago today, to leave the European Union and chart a new future for our country.
That decision will change the course of Britain’s history. It has thrown into sharp relief the fundamental strengths of the British economy that will ensure our future success: the global reach of our services industries; the strength of our science and high-tech manufacturing base; and the cutting-edge British businesses that are leading the world in disruptive technologies. But it is a decision that also makes more urgent than ever the need to tackle our economy’s long-term weaknesses such as the productivity gap, the housing challenge, and the damaging imbalance in economic growth and prosperity across our country. We resolve today to confront those challenges head on, to prepare our country to seize the opportunities ahead, and, in doing so, to build an economy that works for everyone—an economy where every corner of this United Kingdom is part of our national success.
I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). My style will, of course, be different from his. I suspect that I will prove no more adept at pulling rabbits from hats than my successor as Foreign Secretary has been at retrieving balls from the back of scrums, but my focus on building Britain’s long-term future will be the same. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton took over an economy on the brink of collapse, with the highest budget deficit in our post-war history, and brought that down by two thirds. That is a record of which he can be proud.
But times have moved on, and our task now is to prepare our economy to be resilient as we exit the EU and to be match-fit for the transition that will follow. So we will maintain our commitment to fiscal discipline while recognising the need for investment to drive productivity, and for fiscal headroom to support the economy through the transition.
Let me turn now to the forecasts. Since 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility has provided an independent economic and fiscal forecast to which the Government must respond—gone are the days when the Chancellor could mark his own homework—and I thank Robert Chote and his team for their hard work. Today’s OBR forecast is for growth to be 2.1% in 2016—higher than forecast in March. In 2017, the OBR forecasts growth to slow to 1.4%, which it attributes to lower investment and weaker consumer demand driven, respectively, by greater uncertainty and by higher inflation resulting from sterling depreciation. That is slower, of course, than we would wish, but still equivalent to the IMF’s forecast for Germany, and higher than the forecast  for growth in many of our European neighbours, including France and Italy. That fact will, no doubt, be a source of very considerable irritation to some.
As the effects of uncertainty diminish, the OBR forecasts growth recovering to 1.7% in 2018, 2.1% in 2019 and 2020, and 2% in 2021. While the OBR is clear that it cannot predict the deal the UK will strike with the EU, its current view is that the referendum decision means that potential growth over the forecast period is likely to be 2.4 percentage points lower than would otherwise have been the case. The OBR acknowledges that there is a higher degree of uncertainty around these figures than usual.
Despite slower growth, the UK labour market is forecast to remain robust. We have delivered over 2.7 million new jobs since 2010, and this forecast shows that number growing in every year—another 500,000 jobs created over the OBR forecast, providing security for working people across the length and breadth of Britain.
For those who claim that the recovery is just a south-east phenomenon, I have some news: over the past year employment grew fastest in the north-east, the claimant count fell fastest in Northern Ireland, pay grew most strongly in the west midlands, and every UK nation and region saw a record number of people in work. That is a labour market recovery that is working for everyone.
Monetary policy has played an important role in supporting growth since the referendum decision, but a credible fiscal policy remains essential for maintaining market confidence and restoring the economy to long-term health. In view of the uncertainty facing the economy, and in the face of slower growth forecasts, we no longer seek to deliver a surplus in 2019-20, but the Prime Minister and I remain firmly committed to seeing the public finances return to balance as soon as practicable, while leaving enough flexibility to support the economy in the near term.
Today I am publishing a new draft charter for budget responsibility with three fiscal rules: first, that the public finances should be returned to balance as early as possible in the next Parliament and, in the interim, cyclically adjusted borrowing should be below 2% by the end of this Parliament; secondly, that public sector net debt as a share of GDP must be falling by the end of this Parliament; and, thirdly, that welfare spending must be within a cap set by the Government and monitored by the OBR. In the absence of an effective framework, the welfare bill in our country spiralled out of control, with spending on working-age benefits trebling in real terms between 1980 and 2010. As a result of the action that we have taken since 2010, that spending has now stabilised. The cap I am announcing today takes into account the policy changes made since the last Budget, setting a realistic baseline reflecting all announced welfare policies. I confirm again today that the Government have no plans to introduce further welfare savings measures in this Parliament beyond those already announced.
I now turn to the OBR’s fiscal forecasts, but first I will set out the key drivers of changes since the Budget: the post-Budget changes that were made to welfare and housing policies cost the Exchequer £8.6 billion over the forecast period; expected Office for National Statistics classification changes have added £12 billion since the Budget; and tax receipts have been lower than expected this year, causing the OBR to revise down projected   revenues in the future. Added to this is a structural effect of rapidly rising incorporation and self-employment, which further erodes revenues.
Combining those pressures with the impact of forecast weaker growth, and taking account of the measures I shall announce today, the OBR now forecasts that, in cash terms, borrowing is set to be £68.2 billion this year, falling to £59 billion next year and £46.5 billion in 2018-19, and then £21.9 billion, £20.7 billion, and finally £17.2 billion in 2021-22. Overall, public sector net borrowing as a percentage of GDP will fall from 4% last year to 3.5% this year, and it will continue to fall over the Parliament, reaching 0.7% in 2021-22. This will be the lowest deficit as a share of GDP in two decades. The OBR expects cyclically adjusted public sector net borrowing to be 0.8% of GDP in 2020-21, comfortably meeting our target to reduce it to less than 2% and, importantly, leaving significant flexibility to respond to any headwinds that the economy may encounter.
The OBR’s forecast of higher borrowing and slower asset sales, together with the temporary effect of the Bank of England’s action to stimulate growth, translates into an increased forecast for debt in the near term. The OBR forecasts that debt will rise from 84.2% of GDP last year to 87.3% this year, peaking at 90.2% in 2017-18 as the Bank of England’s monetary policy interventions approach their full effect. In 2018-19, debt is projected to fall to 89.7% of national income—the first fall in the national debt as a share of GDP since 2001-02—and it is forecast to continue falling thereafter. Members might be interested to know that after stripping out the effects of the Bank of England interventions, underlying debt peaks this year at 82.4% of GDP and falls thereafter to 77.7% by 2021-22.
It is customary in the run-up to the autumn statement to hear representations from the shadow Chancellor of the day, usually for untenable levels of spending and borrowing. Conservative Members used to think that Ed Balls’ demands were an extreme example, but I have to say that the current shadow Chancellor has outperformed him in the fiscal incontinence sweepstake. What we do not know, of course, is whether the shadow Chancellor can also dance—[Interruption.] He can. Good; a second career awaits him.
I have received some more measured representations from a range of external bodies. Some have called for fiscal expansion, while others have suggested that there is no need at all to respond to a changed economic outlook. That reflects, to be fair, the challenge that we face of resolving how best to protect the recovery and build on the economy’s manifest strengths, yet at the same time respond appropriately to the warnings of a more difficult period ahead.
But with our debt forecast to peak at over 90% next year, and a deficit this year of 3.5%, I have reached my own judgment. It is a judgment based on a sober analysis of our fiscal position, and also on a realistic appraisal of the weakness of UK productivity and the urgent need to address our fiscal challenge from both ends—continuing to control public expenditure, but also growing the potential of the economy and protecting the tax base. So we choose in this autumn statement to prioritise additional high-value investment, specifically in infrastructure and innovation, that will directly contribute  to raising Britain’s productivity. The key judgment we make today is that our hard-won credibility on public spending means that we can fund this commitment in the short term from additional borrowing, while funding all other new policies announced in this autumn statement through additional tax and spending measures. That is the responsible way to secure our economy for the long term.
The productivity gap is well known to hon. and right hon. Members, but shocking none the less—it bears repeating. We lag the US and Germany by some 30 percentage points in productivity, but we also lag France by over 20 points and Italy by 8 points, which means, in the real world, that it takes a German worker four days to produce what we make in five. That means, in turn, that too many British workers work longer hours for lower pay than their counterparts, and that has to change if we are to build an economy that works for everyone. Raising productivity is essential for the high-wage, high-skill economy that will deliver higher living standards for working people across this country.
As a result of decisions taken by my predecessor, public investment is higher over this decade than it was over the whole of the period of the last Labour Government, but today I can go further. I can announce that we are forming a new national productivity investment fund of £23 billion to be spent on innovation and infrastructure over the next five years—investing today for the economy of the future.
Let me set out for the House how this money will be used. We do not invest enough in research, development and innovation. As the pace of technology advances and competition from the rest of the world increases, we must build on our strengths in science and tech innovation to ensure that the next generation of discoveries is not only made here, but developed and produced in Britain. So today I can confirm the additional investment in R and D, rising to an extra £2 billion per year by 2020-21, that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday.
Economically productive infrastructure directly benefits businesses, but families, too, rely on roads, rail, telecoms and, especially, housing. We have made good progress, with the number of new homes being built last year hitting an eight-year high, but for too many, the goal of home ownership remains out of reach. In October, my right hon. Friend the Communities and Local Government Secretary launched the £3 billion home building fund  to unlock over 200,000 homes and up to £2 billion to accelerate construction on public sector land, but we must go further still. The challenge of delivering the housing we so desperately need in the places where it is currently least affordable is not, of course, a new one, but the effect of unaffordable housing on our nation’s productivity makes it an urgent one. My right hon. Friend will bring forward a housing White Paper in due course to address these long-term challenges but, in the meantime, we can take further steps.
One of the biggest objections to housing development, as hon. and right hon. Members will know from their constituencies, is often the impact on local infrastructure, so we will focus Government infrastructure investment to unlock land for housing with a new £2.3 billion housing infrastructure fund to deliver infrastructure for up to 100,000 new homes in areas of high demand. To provide affordable housing that supports a wide range  of need, we will invest a further £1.4 billion to deliver 40,000 additional affordable homes. I will also relax restrictions on Government grant to allow providers to deliver a wider range of housing types. I can also announce a large-scale regional pilot of right to buy for housing association tenants, and continued support for home ownership through the Help to Buy equity loan scheme and the Help to Buy ISA.
This package means that over the course of this Parliament, the Government expect to more than double, in real terms, annual capital spending on housing. Coupled with our resolve to tackle the long-term challenges of land supply, this commitment to housing delivery represents a step change in our ambition to increase the supply of homes for sale and for rent to deliver a housing market that works for everyone.
Reliable transport networks are essential to growth and productivity, so this autumn statement commits significant additional funding to help to keep Britain moving now, and to invest in the transport networks and vehicles of the future. I will commit: an additional £1.1 billion of investment in English local transport networks, where small investments can often offer big wins; £220 million additionally to address traffic pinch points on strategic roads; £450 million to trial digital signalling on our railways to achieve a step change in reliability and to squeeze more capacity out of our existing rail infrastructure—that is something I know the Leader of the Opposition will welcome—and, finally, £390 million to build on our competitive advantage in low-emission vehicles and the development of connected autonomous vehicles, plus a 100% first year capital allowance for the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
The Department for Transport will continue to work with Transport for the North to develop detailed options for northern powerhouse rail. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will set out more details of specific projects and priorities over the coming weeks.
Our future transport, business and lifestyle needs will require world-class digital infrastructure to underpin them, so my ambition—

Kevin Brennan: It says here.

Philip Hammond: Yes—it says here because I wrote it here.
My ambition is for the UK to be a world leader in 5G. That means a full-fibre network; a step change in speed, security and reliability. So we will invest over £1 billion in our digital infrastructure to catalyse private investment in fibre networks and to support 5G trials. From April, we will introduce 100% business rates relief for a five-year period on new fibre infrastructure, supporting further roll-out of fibre to homes and businesses.
We have chosen to borrow to kick-start a transformation in infrastructure and innovation investment, but we must sustain this effort over the long term if we are to make a lasting difference to the UK’s productivity performance, so today I have written to the National Infrastructure Commission to ask it to make its recommendations on the future infrastructure needs of the country, using the assumption that the Government will invest between 1% and 1.2% of GDP every year from 2020 in economic infrastructure covered by the commission. To put that in context, we will spend around 0.8% of GDP on the same definition this year.
I am also backing the commission’s interim recommendations on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, published last week, with £110 million of funding for east-west rail and a commitment to deliver the new Oxford-Cambridge expressway. That project can be more than just a transport link. It can become a transformational tech corridor, drawing on the world-class research strengths of our two best-known universities. I welcome the commission’s continuing work on delivery model options. We will carefully consider its final recommendations in due course.
The major increase in infrastructure spending I have announced today will represent a significant increase in funding through the Barnett formula, of more than £250 million to the Northern Ireland Executive, £400 million to the Welsh Government and £800 million to the Scottish Government.
Public investment is only part of the picture, however. About half of our economic infrastructure is financed by the private sector, and we will continue to support that investment through the UK guarantee scheme, which I am today extending until at least 2026. The new capital investment I have announced will provide the financial backbone for the Government’s industrial strategy that the Prime Minister spoke about on Monday, a firm foundation upon which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will work with industry to build our ambition of an economy that works for all.
I can announce four further measures to back business. I am doubling the UK export finance capacity to make it easier for British businesses to export. I am funding Charlie Mayfield’s business-led initiative to boost management skills across British businesses. I am taking a first step to tackle the long-standing problem of our fastest growing start-up tech firms being snapped up by bigger companies, rather than growing to scale, by injecting an additional £400 million into venture capital funds through the British Business Bank, unlocking £1 billion of new finance for growing firms. I am also launching today a Treasury-led review of the barriers to accessing patient capital in the UK, so that we can take further action to address them.
This Government recognise that, for too long, economic growth in our country has been too concentrated in London and the south-east. That is not just a social problem but an economic problem. London is one of the highest-productivity cities in the world and we should celebrate that fact. But no other major developed economy has such a gap between the productivity of its capital city and its second and third cities, so we must drive up the performance of our regional cities. Today we publish our strategy for addressing productivity barriers in the northern powerhouse, and give the go ahead to a programme of major roads schemes in the north. Our midlands engine strategy will follow shortly, but I am today providing funding so that the evaluation study for the midlands rail hub can go ahead.
In addition, we are investing in local infrastructure in every region of England. I can announce the allocation of £1.8 billion from the local growth fund to the English regions: £556 million to local enterprise partnerships in the north of England, £542 million to the midlands and east of England, and £683 million to LEPs in the  south-west, south-east and London. We will announce the detailed breakdown of allocations to individual LEPs shortly.
Devolution remains at the heart of this Government’s approach to supporting local growth, and we recommit today to our city deals with Swansea, Edinburgh, north Wales and Tay cities. I can also announce today we are beginning negotiations on a city deal for Stirling so that every single city in Scotland will be on course to have a city deal. To support new mayoral combined authorities in England, I can announce that we will grant them new borrowing powers to reflect their new responsibilities.
While we continue discussions with London and the west midlands on possible devolution of further powers I can announce today that London will receive £3.15 billion as its share of national affordable housing funding, to deliver a commitment of more than 90,000 affordable homes. I can also announce that we are devolving to London the adult education budget, and giving London greater control over the delivery of employment support services for the hardest to help.
I have deliberately avoided making this statement into a long list of individual projects being supported, but I am going to make one exception. I will act today, with just seven days to spare, to save one of the UK’s most important historic houses, Wentworth Woodhouse near Rotherham. It is said to be the inspiration for Pemberley in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”. But in 1946, in an extraordinary act of cultural vandalism, the then Labour Government authorised extensive opencast coal mining virtually up to the front door of this precious property. Perhaps that is Labour’s idea of a northern powerhouse. Wentworth Woodhouse is now—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I want to hear about this house. It sounds very interesting indeed.

Philip Hammond: Wentworth Woodhouse is now at critical risk of being lost to future generations. A local effort has been hugely successful in securing millions in funding from various foundations and charities, subject to the balance required being found by 30 November. We will today provide a £7.6 million grant towards urgent repairs to safeguard this key piece of northern heritage—all but destroyed by a Labour Government, and saved by a Conservative one.
I can also confirm distribution of a further £102 million of LIBOR bank fines to armed forces and emergency services charities, including, my hon. Friends will be pleased to hear, £20 million to support the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre at Stanford Hall in Nottinghamshire, as well as £3 million from the tampon tax fund for Comic Relief to distribute to a range of women’s charities.
We choose to invest in our economic infrastructure because it can transform the growth potential of our economy, as well as improving the quality of people’s lives. That investment is possible only because the Government are prepared to take the tough decisions—every one of them opposed by the Labour party—to maintain control of current spending. When we took office in 2010, public spending was 45% of GDP; this year, it is set to be 40%. During those six years, we have  seen crime fall by more than a quarter, the highest proportion ever of good or outstanding schools, the number of doctors in our NHS increasing by 10,000, pensioner poverty at its lowest level ever, the lowest ever number of children being raised in workless households and the highest ever number of young people going on to study full time at university.
We have demonstrated beyond doubt that controlling public spending is compatible with world-class public services and social improvement. But, as the OBR’s debt projections demonstrate, we have more work to do to eliminate the deficit. Departmental spending plans set out in the spending review last autumn will therefore remain in place, and departmental expenditure in 2021-22 will grow in line with inflation. The £3.5 billion of savings to be delivered through the efficiency review, announced at the Budget and led by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, must be delivered in full. I have, however, exceptionally agreed to provide additional funding to the Ministry of Justice to tackle urgent prison safety issues by increasing the number of prison officers by 2,500.
Having run two large spending Departments in previous roles, I came to this job with some very clear views about the relationship between the Treasury and spending Departments. I want Departments to be incentivised to drive efficiencies, and I want the Treasury to be an enabler for good, effective spending across government. To kick-start this new approach, I will allow up to £1 billion of the savings found by the efficiency review to be reinvested in 2019-20 in priority areas and I have budgeted today accordingly.
We manage public spending so that we can invest in the public’s priorities. The Government have underlined those priorities with a series of commitments and protections for the duration of this Parliament. I can confirm today that, despite the fiscal pressures, we will meet our commitments to protect the budgets of key public services and defence; keep our promise to the world’s poorest through our overseas aid budget; and meet our pledge to our country’s pensioners through the triple lock. But as we look ahead to the next Parliament, we will need to ensure that we tackle the challenges of rising longevity and fiscal sustainability, so the Government will review public spending priorities and other commitments for the next Parliament in light of the evolving fiscal position at the next spending review.
I now turn to taxation. Since 2010, the Government have put a business-led recovery at the heart of our plan. We have cut corporation tax from 28% to 20%, sending the message that Britain is open for business. The additional investment in productivity and infrastructure that I have announced today underscores that message, and the raft of investments in the UK announced since the referendum—by SoftBank, Glaxo, Nissan, Google and Apple among others—confirms it. My priority as Chancellor is to ensure that Britain remains the No. 1 destination for business, creating the investment, the jobs and the prosperity to protect our long-term future. I know how much business values certainty and stability, so I confirm today that we will stick to the business tax road map we set out in March. Corporation tax will fall to 17%, by far the lowest overall rate of corporate tax in the G20. We will deliver the commitments we have made to the oil and gas sector. The carbon price support  will continue to be capped out to 2020, and we will implement the business rates reduction package worth £6.7 billion. I can also confirm today that, having consulted further, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will lower the transitional relief cap from 45% next year to 43%, and from 50% to 32% the year after. That’s complicated, but it’s good news—just in case anybody wasn’t sure, Mr Speaker. I will also increase the rural rate relief to 100%, giving small businesses in rural areas a tax break worth up to £2,900 a year.
In return for these highly competitive tax rates, the tax base must be sustainable. From April 2017, we will align the employee and employer national insurance thresholds at £157 a week. There will be no cost to employees, and the maximum cost to business will be an annual £7.18 per employee. Insurance premium tax in this country is lower than in many other European countries, and half the rate of VAT. In order to raise revenue, which is required to fund the spending commitments I am making today, it will rise from 10% currently, to 12% from next June. At the same time, I can confirm the Government’s commitment to legislate next year to end the compensation culture surrounding whiplash claims, a major area of insurance fraud. That will save drivers an average of £40 on their annual premiums.
Technological progress is changing the way people live and work, and the tax system needs to keep pace. For example, the OBR has today highlighted the growing cost to the Exchequer of incorporation. So the Government will consider how we can ensure that the taxation of different ways of working is fair between different individuals doing essentially the same work, and sustains the tax base as the economy undergoes rapid change. We will consult in due course on any proposed changes. In the meantime, the Government will take action now to reduce the difference between the treatment of cash earnings and benefits. The majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary by agreement with their employer and pay much lower tax on benefits in kind. That is unfair, so from April 2017 employers and employees who use these schemes will pay the same taxes as everyone else. Following consultation with stakeholders, ultra-low emission cars, pension savings, childcare and the cycle-to-work scheme will be excluded from this change, and certain long-term arrangements will be protected until April 2021. For pensions that have been drawn down, I will also reduce to £4,000 the money purchase annual allowance, to prevent inappropriate double tax relief being gained.
This Government have done more than any other to tackle tax evasion, avoidance and aggressive tax planning. The UK tax gap, it may surprise some Opposition Members to hear, is now one of the lowest in the world. But we must constantly be alert to new threats to our tax base and be willing to move swiftly to counter them. At the Budget, we committed to removing the tax benefits of disguised earnings for employees, and I am now going to do the same for the self-employed and employers, raising a further £630 million over the forecast period. We will shut down inappropriate use of the VAT flat rate scheme that was put in place to help small businesses. We will abolish the tax advantages linked to employee shareholder status, in response to growing evidence that it is primarily being used for tax-planning purposes by high-earning individuals. We will introduce  a new penalty for those who enable the use of a tax avoidance scheme that HMRC later challenges and defeats. These measures, and others set out in the autumn statement document, raise about £2 billion over the forecast period.
There is understandable public concern that the pitch is tilted in favour of large multinational groups, which are able to use cross-border structures to manage their tax liabilities. Following detailed consultation, I can confirm that we will implement our new restriction on tax relief for corporate interest expenses and reform the way that relief is provided for historic losses. These measures, scored at Budget 2016, will help to ensure that large businesses will always pay tax in years where they make substantial profits. They will also mean that businesses cannot avoid tax by borrowing excessively in the UK to fund their overseas activities. They take effect in April, and will raise over £5 billion from the largest businesses in the UK.
I said that the tax system must be fair and that means rewarding those who work hard by helping them to keep more of what they earn. There is one tax reform the Government have pursued since 2010 that has done more than any other to improve the lot of working people: raising the tax-free personal allowance. When we entered Government in 2010, it was £6,475. After six years, it is now £11,000, and will rise to £11,500 in April. As a result, we have more than halved the tax bill of someone with a salary of £15,000 to just £800. That is a massive boost to the incomes of low and middle earners. Since 2010, we have cut income tax for 28 million people and taken 4 million people out of income tax altogether. I can confirm today that, despite the challenging fiscal forecasts, we will deliver on our commitment to raise the allowance to £12,500, and the higher rate threshold to £50,000, by the end of this Parliament. Once that £12,500 has been reached, the personal allowance will rise automatically during the 2020s in line with inflation, rather than the national minimum wage, as currently planned. It will be for the Chancellor to decide from year to year whether more is affordable.
As well as taking millions of ordinary people out of tax, we are the Government who introduced the national living wage and gave a pay rise to over 1 million workers. [Interruption.] Labour Members don’t like it—a Tory Government gave a pay rise to over 1 million of the lowest-paid workers. We are the Government who introduced 15 hours a week of free childcare for all three and four-year-olds, and we will double that for working families from September. We are the Government whose education reforms have raised standards and expanded opportunity, with 1.4 million more children now in “good” or “outstanding” schools, while the new capital funding I have provided today for grammar schools will help to continue that trend. We are the Government who pledged to invest in our NHS, and we are delivering on that promise by backing the NHS’s five year forward view plan for the future with £10 billion of additional funding by the end of 2020-21. But we recognise that more needs to be done to help families make ends meet and to ensure that every household has opportunities to prosper. So today I can announce that the national living wage will increase from £7.20 to £7.50 next April. That is a pay rise worth over £500 a year to a full-time worker.
Creating jobs, lowering taxes and raising wages address directly the concerns of ordinary families, and the revenue-raising measures that I have announced today enable me to go further to help families on low wages. Universal credit is an important reform to our benefits system and is designed to make sure that work always pays. We want to reinforce that position. I have considered very carefully the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and others, and weighed them carefully against the fiscal constraints, and I have concluded that from April we can reduce the universal credit taper rate from 65% to 63%. This is effectively a targeted tax cut that will be worth £700 million a year by 2021-22 for those in work on low incomes. It will increase the incentive to work and encourage progression in work, and it will help 3 million households across our country.
We believe that a market economy is the best way of delivering sustained prosperity for the British people. We will always support a market-led approach, but we will not be afraid to intervene where there is evidence of market failure. We will look carefully over the coming months at the functioning of key markets, including the retail energy market, to make sure they are functioning fairly for all consumers. In the private rental market, letting agents are currently able to charge unregulated fees to tenants. We have seen these fees spiral, despite attempts to regulate them, often to hundreds of pounds. This is wrong. Landlords appoint letting agents and landlords should meet their fees. So I can announce today that we will ban fees to tenants as soon as possible. We will also consult on how best to ban pension cold calling and a wider range of pension scams.
We can also help today those who rely on the income from modest savings to get by. Low interest rates have helped our economy to recover, but they have significantly reduced the interest people can earn on their cash savings, so we will launch a new, market-leading savings bond through NS&I. The detail will be announced at the Budget, but we expect our new investment bond will have an interest rate of around 2.2% gross and a term of three years. Savers will be able to deposit up to £3,000, and we expect around 2 million people to benefit.
The announcements I have made today lower taxes on working people, boost wages, back savers and bear down on bills. In early 2017, we will begin the roll-out of tax-free childcare across Britain, providing a saving of up to £2,000 per child. Once it is rolled out, we pledge to keep it under review to ensure that it is indeed delivering the support that working families need.
There is one further area of household expenditure where the Government can help. The oil price has risen by over 60% since January, and sterling has declined by 15% against the dollar. That means, of course, significant pressure on prices at the pump here in Britain, so today we stand on the side of millions of hard-working people in our country by cancelling the fuel duty rise for the seventh successive year. In total, this saves the average car driver £130 a year and the average van driver £350 a  year. This is a tax cut worth £850 million next year and means that the current fuel duty freeze is the longest for 40 years.
I have one further announcement to make. This is my first autumn statement as Chancellor. After careful consideration and detailed discussion with the Prime Minister, I have decided that it will also be my last. I am abolishing the autumn statement. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] No other major economy makes hundreds of tax changes twice a year, and neither should we, so the spring Budget in a few months will be the final spring Budget. Starting in autumn 2017, Britain will have an autumn Budget announcing tax changes well in advance of the start of the tax year. From 2018, there will be a spring statement responding to the forecast—[Laughter.]

John Bercow: Order. The House is in a great state of emotion. Some people are very easily humoured. I am glad they are so humoured, but we must hear the Chancellor.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps they should have read their briefing, Mr Speaker, because they might then have remembered that Parliament has mandated the OBR to produce a report to Parliament twice a year and has mandated the Government to reply. From 2018, therefore, there will be a spring statement responding to the forecast from the OBR but no major fiscal event. If unexpected changes in the economy require it, I will of course reserve the right to announce actions at the spring statement, but I will not make significant changes twice a year just for the sake of it. This change will allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny of Budget measures ahead of their implementation. It is a long-overdue reform to our tax policy-making process and brings the UK into line with best practice recommended by the IMF, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Institute for Government and many others.
The OBR report today confirms the underlying strength and resilience of the British economy. This autumn statement responds to the challenge of building on that strength, while also heeding the warnings in the OBR’s figures, as we begin writing this new chapter in our country’s history. It re-states our commitment to living within our means and sets out our choice to invest in our future. It sends a clear message to the world that Britain is open for business and it provides help to those who need it now. We have made our choices and set our course. We are a great nation, bold in our vision, confident in our strengths and determined in our ambition to build a country that works for everyone. I commend this statement to the House.

John Martin McDonnell: This morning, we heard the verdict from the trial, following the tragic murder of Jo Cox. That murder robbed this House of a fierce advocate for social justice and a passionate campaigner. Her killing was an attack on democracy itself. Our thoughts are with Jo’s family.
Today’s statement places on record the abject failure of the last six wasted years, and offers no hope for the future. The figures speak for themselves. Growth is down; wage growth, down; business investment, down.  [Hon. Members: “Sit down.”] The Government’s own deficit targets are failed; the debt target, failed; the welfare cap, failed.

John Bercow: Order. Let me say now that if Members from either side want to shout out, they should not bother to stand, because they will not be called. I say that to Members on both sides—stop it. It is juvenile, low grade and hugely deprecated by the public, whose support we should be seeking and whom we should try to impress, not to repel.

John Martin McDonnell: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We have heard today that there will be more taxes, more debt and more borrowing. The verdict could not be clearer. The so-called long-term economic plan has failed. As the Treasury’s own leaked paper reveals, the Government knew it had failed before the referendum result was announced. We now face Brexit—the greatest economic challenge of a generation, and we face it unprepared and ill equipped. The new Chancellor acknowledged the failure of the economic strategy in October when he promised a reset of economic policy.
Today, we expected a change of direction after those six wasted years. Instead, we have seen further cuts to earnings for those in work through cuts to universal credit, and a living wage increase that is lower than expected under the previous Chancellor. This is a new Conservative leadership with no answers to the challenges facing our country following Brexit, and no vision to secure our future prosperity.
Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, but the chaotic Tory handling of Brexit threatens the future prosperity of this country. The Chancellor must now do the right thing for British workers and businesses. He must insist on full tariff-free access to the single market. He and the Treasury know that that is what will get the best deal for jobs and prosperity here. It may not be in the Chancellor’s nature, but in the national interest, I urge him to stand up to the Prime Minister and the extreme Brexit fanatics in her Cabinet. If he stands up for British businesses and jobs by fighting for single market access, he will have our full support.
After six wasted years, wages are still lower than they were in 2008. Self-employed people are, on average, paid less than they were a generation ago. Six million people are earning less than the living wage. Too many people are having to worry about buying school uniforms, affording a family holiday or even just paying the rent or mortgage.
We have had a month of briefing from the Conservative party on those people who are called “just about managing”—the JAMs. To the Conservative party, these people are just an electoral demographic. To us, they are our friends, our neighbours and the people we represent. Let me tell the House why those people are just managing. It is the result of Tories imposing austerity on an economy that could not bear the strain. We have seen productivity stagnate, but there is nothing in the autumn statement on the scale needed to overturn those six wasted years.
If the Chancellor really wants to make a fairer tax system as well, he could start by bringing back the 50p tax rate for the richest in our country. We have  heard familiar hollow rhetoric from the Tories on tax avoidance, when they have cut the resources of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—the very people who collect these taxes. The resources available to HMRC today are 40% less than they were in 2000.
The Chancellor has frozen in-work benefits at a time when food prices are rising and wages cannot be expected to keep up. We need an economy that is fundamentally more prosperous and where prosperity is, yes, shared by all. The increases in the national living wage announced today are lower than expected and leave the poorest-paid workers still earning less than they need to live on. So I ask the Chancellor to adopt a real living wage level, as Labour has pledged to do, and abandon his predecessor’s empty rhetoric.
Regrettably, the Chancellor is still going ahead with some of the cuts to universal credit. Thanks to pressure—I pay tribute to Members of all parties who have campaigned on this issue—he is offering to soften the blow. We do not want the blow softened; we want it lifted altogether. Today’s changes will leave a single parent on average at least £2,300 worse off. These are the very people who are working hard to deliver for their families, and the Government are betraying them.
As for people with disabilities, who have been put through the ordeal of the discredited work capability assessment and are trying to get themselves ready to return to work—they are “just about managing”—they still remain in the Chancellor’s firing line. He cutting £30 a week from the support that these disabled people receive. In our society, that is scandalous.
Those who are “just about managing” also rely on our public services. They send their children to local schools; they depend on their local hospital; they rely on local council services to clean their streets, tend to their parks and playgrounds and open their libraries. The reality, however, after six wasted years is that our public services are just not managing. Today, the childcare that parents rely on remains underfunded, as the Public Accounts Committee has reported—and it will remain underfunded, even after today’s announcements.
I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) for the important work they did in bringing the issue of child burial fees to public attention. I ask the Government to do the right thing on child burial fees and reconsider making funding available for families in these desperate circumstances.
Councillors from all political parties are reporting that they are at a tipping point in the provision of social care. The previous Chancellor cut nearly £5 billion from social care, meaning that over 1 million people who need care are not getting it. They are not even “just about managing”, and they got little help today. We have called for additional support for social care, because the funding being provided today is only a stop-gap measure. Our social care system will not be secure without long-term funding. Tonight, many elderly people will remain trapped in their homes, isolated and lonely, lacking the care they need because of continuing cuts to social care—and social care cannot be cut without also hitting the NHS.
The supposed £10 billion funding allocated to the NHS is a restatement of an earlier commitment, but the Health Committee described this £10 billion claim as  “misleading and incorrect”. The real amount is less than half what is claimed. As a result, we now have 3.9 million people on NHS waiting lists—more than ever—and many of those 3.9 million people are waiting in pain, and they got no relief today. Across the country, hospitals face losing their A&E units, their maternity units and their specialist units. This Tory Government are failing patients, as well as failing the dedicated NHS staff who serve us so well. This is the first time that healthcare spending per head has declined since the NHS was created, and I fear there will be a crisis in funding and care over this Christmas. The NHS cares for us, and we should care for the NHS.
Members of this Government have also overseen the biggest real-terms cuts in education for four decades. One pound in every seven has been cut from further education college budgets, and Conservative policy has saddled a generation of students with a lifetime of debt. How can a Government seriously talk about supporting a 21st-century economy when they are planning to pour tens of millions into the failed 20th-century policy of grammar schools, segregating our children at an early age?
As for housing, the Chancellor announced today that he was scrapping “pay to stay” proposals and letting agents’ fees—a U-turn that is a victory for Labour’s campaigns against both the “tenant tax” and the letting fees. The Chancellor has spoken before about the dream of home ownership for the young. Nothing that he has announced today is of the scale that is needed to suggest that that will remain anything other than a dream. The hard facts are these. The Government of which the Chancellor was a member built fewer homes than had been built at any point since the 1920s, and there are now a third of a million fewer home owners under the age of 35. Today the Chancellor could have delivered the scale of investment that is required to build the homes that we need and to create a new generation of home ownership. He significantly failed to do so.
Thanks to campaigning by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the Wentworth Woodhouse building will be saved. I am grateful for that. The accusation was that a Labour Government had sited an opencast mine near the building and threatened it. That, I believe, was in 1947. I only wish that some of the policies pursued by Tory Governments since the 1950s could be reversed so easily.
The Government’s biggest investment failure is this: the Chancellor has failed to address properly the Government’s most consistent shortcoming. His predecessor cut public investment to the lowest that it had been since the 1990s. Rather than delivering the ambitious investment that our economy needs throughout the country, the Chancellor has failed to recognise the scale of the challenge. He also risks repeating the mistakes from last year, with the national flood resilience plan failing to provide the protection that our communities need.
Just one in five of the projects in the investment pipeline is under construction, and shovel-ready projects worth £82 billion are still being delayed. The infrastructure gap between London and the rest of the country remains unbridged. London was scheduled to receive 12 times as much public investment per head as the north-east of  England. The announcement of a £1.1 billion investment in transport is, in fact, a reannouncement. The Oxford-Cambridge rail link is significantly delayed against Network Rail’s original planned completion date of March 2019. There are no new ideas here, just a promise to deliver what the Government have previously failed to deliver. This is press-release policy-making, not provision. All that we need now is the return of the high-vis jacket.
The “fourth industrial revolution” will not be delivered on delays, old news and reannouncements. The Government have, at last, realised their mistake, and now talk about an industrial strategy—words that Ministers refused even to refer to in the past—but it is not enough to change a few ministerial titles. The Government and the Chancellor need to deliver. We have yet to see the proposed Green Paper on industrial strategy that was promised over the summer.
The same Government who now talk up high-tech investment oversaw a real-terms cut of £1 billion in science funding during the last Parliament. The OECD recommends that developed countries should be spending 3% of GDP on science. On the basis of what we have heard today, the new spending will lift our expenditure from 1.7% of GDP to a mere 1.8%.
It is the same familiar story for business. The Chancellor is continuing the race to the bottom on corporation tax, and, while continuing the cuts in public services, he is cutting taxes for big business. We know that it is not headline tax rates that encourage long-term investment by businesses. Business investment has been revised down every year under this Government. What encourages businesses to invest is the knowledge that they have access to skilled workers, world-class infrastructure and major markets.
Today’s grim economic forecasts reveal the challenge that lies ahead. The Chancellor admitted over the summer that it was time for a change of course. He has now had to abandon the Government’s fiscal charter, with its failed hard surplus target. Labour warned that a hard surplus target lacked the flexibility to adapt to economic circumstances and the capacity to allow investment. The Chancellor’s U-turn today demonstrates just how right we have been over the past year.
Only weeks ago, the Prime Minister offered the hope of change and the Chancellor offered to “reset” economic policy. Today, we have seen the very people whom the Prime Minister promised to champion betrayed. The Chancellor has failed to break with the economic strategy of austerity. The country remains unprepared and ill-equipped to meet the challenges of Brexit and secure Britain’s future as a world-leading economy. I fear that, after all the sacrifices that people have made over the last six years, today’s statement has laid the foundations for more wasted years. Only a Labour Government will deliver on the ambition and vision to rebuild and transform our economy so that no one and no community is left behind.

Philip Hammond: Let me begin by associating myself with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the Jo Cox trial and sending my deepest condolences to her family and friends, who will be suffering again today.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Privy Council. I only wish that I could have been present at the investiture. I remember the procedure quite well: they give you a little red book to hold. [Laughter.]
I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement. His central argument appears to be that the deficit is too high and borrowing is too high. That is a bit of a problem, because, as I have understood it, his central proposal for our economy is to borrow more and spend more. Under his rule, Labour would always be borrowing, in good times as well as bad. His analysis of the problem of the last Labour Government is not that they spent too much money, but that they spent too little. Indeed, his rule has remarkable similarities to Gordon Brown’s “golden rule”, and we all know where that got us. His big idea is to spend an extra £500 billion, without any notion of how he would pay for it.
The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the industrial strategy. I am not sure that I welcome his welcome, but I warn him not to welcome it too quickly, because it will not look anything like an industrial strategy that would come out of his office. What he has heard about today is a responsible set of decisions, such as the decision to borrow £23 billion of tightly targeted investment while paying for every single penny of every other commitment that has been made.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about Brexit, and attacked us over the way in which we are handling the Brexit process. I honestly do not know whether he has ever been involved in a negotiation—I suspect not—but I invite him to look across the continent for a moment and note the admirable discipline that our negotiating counterparts are displaying in their messages, revealing nothing as they prepare to go into this negotiation with us. My advice is this: if we want to secure the best possible deal for Britain, we must keep our cards appropriately close to our chest.
The right hon. Gentleman may have heard “cuts in people’s incomes” in my announcement about universal credit. Let me explain to him how this works. When we cut the taper from 65% to 63%, we allow people to keep an extra 2% of the income they are earning. I would have thought he would have welcomed that.
This is all about making tough decisions, and I am very happy to debate with the right hon. Gentleman, but I just wish he would be honest enough to accept that we cannot shower money everywhere, proposing to spend money on everything, without having to raise that money, either by taxes on ordinary people or by cutting spending elsewhere. It is simply no good to keep on pretending that we can do that just by taxing the rich. The top 1% of people in this country already contribute 27% of income tax paid, and unfortunately there are just not enough of them to be able to finance all the right hon. Gentleman’s ambitions.
The right hon. Gentleman said he was disappointed by the announcement on the national living wage. I do not remember—perhaps one of my hon. Friends can remind me—the level of the national living wage during the 13 years of Labour’s Government. He might note that the level I have announced today is precisely the level recommended by the Low Pay Commission, the body set up to pronounce on these things.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman would also be honest when he talks about the work-related activity group in the employment and support arrangements. This applies to new claims only, as he very well knows, so nobody is going to have £29 a week taken away from them however many times he says it. He also knows that it is not a  stand-alone measure; it is part of a package. The money saved is being reinvested in a £330 million package  to get these people into work, with targeted support to help them to be ready for work.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about house building starts. House building starts were 45% down under the last Labour Government.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition have spread division and disunity through the Labour party, and that is exactly what they would spread through the country if they ever—God forbid—got into government. The right hon. Gentleman says there are no new ideas; I have to say that he needs to check the opinion polling, because that is not quite what public opinion believes. Instead of carping and opposing every measure we propose, why doesn’t he roll up his sleeves and support us in the hard work of building an economy that works for everyone?

Kenneth Clarke: I congratulate the Chancellor on reverting to the extremely sensible practice of having only one Budget a year, which Gordon Brown abandoned in order to try to buy votes twice a year, with disastrous consequences. I also congratulate him on easing the taper on tax credit, because it is having distorting effects on the labour market at the moment, for example by discouraging part-time workers from working extra hours. I particularly thank him for the money he has spent on the very valuable work rehabilitating the disabled at Stanford Hall in my constituency.
With those notable exceptions, will the Chancellor reassure me he will resist political pressures of all kinds over the coming years to move away from the very sensible fiscal discipline he has set out, because the major risk to his period of office would come—and it would affect every section of our society, including the JAMs that the media have discovered—if he were unable to avoid or mitigate the risk of recession, which global uncertainty undoubtedly poses to us in the real world?
Finally, will he confirm that, wherever he holds his cards, he will continue, inside the Government if necessary, to spell out economic reality and the long-term benefits to this country, if he wants to develop a modern, competitive economy, of retaining access to our most important market, in Europe, by retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union, and that no amount of short-term political pressure will allow him to be deflected from that?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am delighted that we have been able to lower the taper rate of universal credit, because of course it is absolutely in line with our principle that we should be supporting and encouraging people into work. He says the taper rate discourages people, but it is of course a much lower rate of withdrawal than under the old tax credit system it replaces.
Let me reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remain absolutely committed to the sound Tory principle that a country has to live within its means. Of course we have to deal with the realities the world throws at us, and that is why today I have adopted, as an interim measure for the remainder of this Parliament, a cyclically adjusted target which will always allow us to respond to  any downturn that occurs. However, I certainly understand the importance of economic reality, and I also understand, as does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the extreme desirability of achieving the very best access to markets in Europe for those who produce our goods and services.

Stewart Hosie: First, may I associate myself with the words of the shadow Chancellor and the Chancellor on the late Jo Cox? May I also thank the Chancellor for what he said about the Tay cities deal? I note that what he said was slightly different from the words in the Red Book, so we will take him at face value from the Dispatch Box. In his attempt to clamp down on evasion, it was disappointing that no reference was made to Scottish limited partnerships. One would have thought that there would have been more, too, in terms of fairness overall, and a reference to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign and the unfairness for those women.
The Chancellor gave us plenty of information today, but with no more than a glib reference to being match fit at the beginning and a bit of deflection, there was very little on the elephant in the room, which is Brexit. It is not as if the Treasury does not know what the consequences of it will be; its own assessment tells us that tax yields could be down by £66 billion a year after 15 years and GDP down perhaps by 9.5% —a figure confirmed by the London School of Economics—as a result of reduced trade lowering productivity. That amounts to some £6,500 per year per household. So where was the plan to ensure that there is no hard Brexit and to maintain access to the single market? Where was the plan to mitigate the losses in tax yield and GDP? Although the Chancellor said a considerable amount about capital investment and research and development—and I welcome some of it up to a point—where was the fully developed scheme actually to boost productivity?
We do not go into this next period from a position of strength. As the Chancellor knows, UK GDP is already nearly 20% lower than it would have been had we achieved even a 2% trend growth rate since 2008. Our argument is that the austerity of this Government and the previous Government sucked consumption out of the economy, weakening recovery. This Government are set to repeat the error. Growth barely reaches 2% for the forecast period, and although the Chancellor sensibly did not put a date on it, he is still targeting a surplus in the economy, perhaps again before recovery has been secured.
I am glad the Chancellor has changed the fiscal charter, because the previous permanent surplus rule, taking £10 billion a year more out than required to run a balanced economy and cutting £50 billion a year more than required to run a balanced current budget, left us with some terrible consequences. As discretionary consolidation, cuts and tax rises took place, the ratio  of cuts to tax rises also increased, placing the burden of austerity and an arbitrary fiscal target on the back of the poor. That has made the poorest decile 5% worse off and the richest 10% almost entirely better off. The Government have clearly worked out something, and I welcome the move on the taper, but let us be clear: at 2p in the pound, on the minimum wage that is 14p an hour.
It is not a king’s ransom and it will not cure poverty. The squeeze has not been lifted from the poor, and the screw of the welfare cap has not been turned off; this has simply made a brutal regime slightly less brutal.
I am glad that the Chancellor mentioned the actions of the Bank of England. Our party very much welcomes what the Governor has done. He has introduced an increase in quantitative easing and £60 billion of extra Government bond purchases, made £10 billion available for corporate bond purchases, set a 0.25% base rate and enabled additional term funding to encourage more and cheaper long-term lending from the banks. However, there has been a more or less complete absence of a fiscal policy stimulus to match the incredible monetary policy activism of the central bank.
The key part of today’s autumn statement—I am pleased to hear that this is the last one; it is my 25th Budget, autumn statement or pre-Budget statement—was the increase in total managed expenditure, but like for like, it amounts to 1.5% of total managed expenditure over the forecast period from 2015-16 to 2020-21. It is to be welcomed, and it certainly represents a break from the recent past, but it can in no way be described as the sort of fiscal stimulus required to match the monetary policy discipline of the central bank.
The Chancellor talked about an increase in capital investment, which I very much welcome. He also talked about an increase in funding for research and development. However, given the fact that the description of research and development has changed in the Green Book, as has the description of the UK Trade & Investment funding—he said that there would be a doubling of some aspects of export support—it is hard to tell precisely what the impact of some of those measures will be. Will he tell us what the total increase in cash and percentage terms of this vital export support will be? Will he also tell us what the overall increase in research and development funding will be across the piece? How does he intend to deploy the £23 billion of what he described as capital investment?

Philip Hammond: I am not sure whether that was a “thank you” or not. I might have to consult my hon. Friends about that. I think it might have been—

Angus Robertson: indicated dissent.

Philip Hammond: Oh, it was not. What we have announced today is a significant increase in capital investment, which includes research and development under the Office for National Statistics definition, and Scotland will get £800 million of that. Research and development is not Barnettised, so the increase will be spread across the whole of the UK, but the infrastructure element will be Barnettised and Scotland will get £800 million. I would point out to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) that Scotland’s economic performance needs attention, and that its productivity needs addressing. I am sure that families and businesses across Scotland will hope that he or one of his colleagues can confirm that the Scottish Government will use this additional funding—in the spirit in which it is being raised for the rest of the United Kingdom—to invest in raising the productivity performance of the Scottish economy. I would very much welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about details of the productivity message. I can assure him that there is no lack of enthusiasm in this Government for tackling the productivity challenge. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, the Treasury and other Departments are involved in a process that will lead to a Green Paper that will allow us to consult extensively with business and other outside bodies before we firm up exactly how to deliver the strategy. What the House has seen today is £23 billion of additional investment, alongside the £150 billion that we have already committed to investing in economic infrastructure over the period, which will form the backbone for that policy and its delivery.
The hon. Gentleman knows very well—although he probably would not admit it—that survey after survey has shown that the biggest drag on growth and business investment in Scotland is the continuing threat of a second referendum.

Angus Robertson: No, it is Brexit.

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman needs to go back and look at the polling data. The concern about a second Scottish independence referendum is bigger than any concerns about possible Brexit arrangements.
In response to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee East, I am publishing a distributional analysis—I believe that it is available in the Vote Office now—of the measures that have been announced today and, cumulatively, of the measures that have been announced throughout this Parliament. It will not show the outcome that he suggested, so perhaps he would like to look at it and we can no doubt have another exchange on this at Treasury questions.
The overall package of measures announced today represents a fiscal loosening of around £23 billion. I acknowledge that that is a reduction of a planned fiscal tightening, but of course there has to be a fiscal tightening over time because we are moving towards living within our means, with a balanced budget in the next Parliament, and we are not going to be deflected from that intention. Finally, just to clear up the confusion, UKTI’s budget is now rolled into the budget of the Department for International Trade. What I announced in my statement was that the risk capacity of UK Export Finance will be doubled so that it can provide finance to enable exporters from all over the UK to sell their goods abroad on credit.

George Osborne: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and successor on his strong statement and assured delivery. I particularly welcome the additional support for the northern powerhouse. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has given us a sober assessment of the economic and borrowing challenges that Britain faces, and the Chancellor is right to keep his powder dry. However, he is also right to adhere to the principles that we control current spending, that we ensure that work pays and make the welfare and tax reforms necessary to deliver that, that we make Britain the best place to attract business and that we have the freest possible trade with our key export markets. I support all the things that he is doing to deliver on those principles.

Philip Hammond: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to say that those principles will guide the actions of this Government—as they should guide the actions of any sensible Government —as we try to future-proof our economy in a time of extraordinary political and technological change. We are facing a period of 20 or 30 years in which the way we work, the way we live and the way we do business will change fundamentally, and unless we invest now in our infrastructure, our science and technology base and our innovation capability, we risk being left behind. That would not deliver the economy and the country that works for everyone that we are committed to.

Ed Miliband: I welcome the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted the fiscal rules that his predecessor described as the single biggest risk to economic recovery. They are the ones that we proposed in 2015. I want to ask him about Brexit. He said at the Tory party conference that the British people did not vote to become poorer. However, on page 19 of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report, we see that £58 billion of the worsening in the public finances is due to the Brexit decision. Is this not a salutary warning to us about the decisions that we will take over the coming months and years? Is it not also a strong argument for us to remain as close as possible to our largest trading area, the single market, and inside rather than outside the customs union?

Philip Hammond: The Prime Minister has said many times—I shall undoubtedly repeat this many times today—that it remains our objective to try to get the closest possible trading arrangement with the European Union and the greatest possible access for our goods and services to be sold into European markets after we leave the European Union. In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I think we have to disaggregate two effects. There is of course going to be a period of uncertainty as we go through the process of exiting the European Union, and that has had a dampening effect on business investment, as the OBR has identified. However, we have to rise to the challenge of getting ourselves match-fit to seize the opportunities that this country will have after we complete that process, and I would urge him to think about that longer-term challenge as well as the short-term issues.

Andrew Tyrie: I congratulate the Chancellor on delivering a crucial statement for the country. It was a Budget in all but name, and I strongly support his decision to make it the first of many autumn Budgets. That is something for which a number of us on the Treasury Committee have been pressing for a while.
The statement will provide reassurance and certainty for the whole country. Given that the education sector creates export earnings of £20 billion—about the same as the car manufacturing sector—will the Chancellor soon be able to provide our colleges and universities with the certainty and reassurance they need that foreign students will not be caught by the 100,000 migration target?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee for his remarks and for the Committee’s work on a single fiscal event—it is much  appreciated and the right way for us to go. On his specific question, students are included, as he knows, in the 100,000 or tens of thousands target, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking at how best to manage student flows in the interests of what, as he says, is an important industry in this country.

Chris Leslie: A few months ago, the Foreign Secretary promised the general public that we would by now have an extra £350 million a week for the national health service. Strangely, however, the Chancellor has just announced that growth is falling and business investment is collapsing and that there will be an extra £110 billion of borrowing over the forecast period when compared with March. I do not see any of his leave-campaigner colleagues on the Front Bench, but has he received an apology yet from the Foreign Secretary or any of them?

Philip Hammond: I am not responsible for remarks that may or may not have been made during political campaigns. The British people made a decision to leave the European Union, and we must respect that decision. If we are to make a success of this process and if we are going to ensure the success of the British economy in the future, we must move on and not repeat this sterile debate over and over again. We must focus our attention on building an economy that is match-fit for the future and that will enable us to deliver high living standards as we make our way in the world.

John Redwood: As someone who is much more optimistic about the UK economy’s prospects under the Chancellor’s stewardship than the OBR usually is, I welcome the increased OBR forecast for this year—a faster rate of growth than in its pre-vote forecast. I also welcome its recognition that there will be no post-vote winter recession in the way that was forecast by some. Does the Chancellor agree that the OBR is probably still quite wrong about 2017? Its forecast is too low, its borrowing forecast is far too high, and we will get good access to the single market once we are out of the EU.

Philip Hammond: I hope that my right hon. Friend is right on that last point, which will of course be our objective. I am grateful to him for his implicit confidence in my stewardship. I am well aware of his views, which are, as always, long standing and utterly consistent. However, it is not my job to opine on the report that the OBR has made by statute to Parliament; it is my job to respond to it. That is what I have done today. Obviously, economic forecasting is not a precise science, and I absolutely recognise, as would the OBR, that individual Members will have their own views on the likely future trajectory of our economy. It is probably worth mentioning that the OBR specifically says in its report that there is an unusually high degree of uncertainty in its forecasts because of the unusual circumstances.

Meg Hillier: In a long statement, we had no mention of the national health service. After the first six months of this year, the deficit is £648 million for trusts alone, with a year-end deficit forecast of £669 million. Given the extraordinary measures to which the Department of  Health had to go to balance its budget in the last financial year and given those projections, what is the Chancellor doing to ensure that our national health service has a sustainable future?

Philip Hammond: I might be a novice at autumn statements, but I am not such a rookie that I did not mention the NHS, so I suggest that the hon. Lady checks Hansard, where she will find that I definitely did. She talks about an aggregate trust deficit of £648 million that was projected at a point that is four months out from the end of the fiscal year. That is in the context of a budget of £110 billion in an NHS that holds a contingency reserve at the centre. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is well aware of such pressures, which are not particularly unusual. They are being managed inside the NHS, and I am of course keeping and will continue to keep a close eye on them with the Health Secretary.

Anna Soubry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a wide range of measures—short term, medium term and long term—that will undoubtedly turbocharge our economy and give it the boost it needs as we face the realities of Brexit. Does he agree that it has never been more important for British business to be at the heart of local enterprise partnerships, great ideas such as the midlands engine, and all the infrastructure plans? Such projects should be driven by British business, not politicians.

Philip Hammond: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend and I am grateful for her comments. I passionately believe that business should be engaged at the heart  of this process—that is the right way to do it—and  local enterprise partnerships and area-specific project organisations are a good innovation for delivering it. However, this is also part of meeting the challenge of regional imbalance, which as I said earlier is not just a social problem, but an economic problem. When we look at our productivity gap when compared with other advanced economies, we should logically look for the things in our country that are different from those in our comparators. The gap between our capital city and our other cities and regions is one of the defining features of the UK economy. By working with businesses from across the country and the regions, in particular by promoting our regional cities, we can at last start to address the problem.

Andy Burnham: The north of England is crying out for a plan for investment in rail, and people will be left asking today, “Where is it?” It is also crying out for investment in social care. It is quite frankly unbelievable that the Chancellor could find no place to mention it today. Six years of cuts to social care have left a record number of older people trapped in hospital and the NHS on the brink. With a dangerous winter now facing us, can he say a little more about how he came to the judgment that new grammar schools are a higher spending priority than the funding of care for older people?

Philip Hammond: I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman—a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury—is not actually able to distinguish between capital and resource, because the funding that we are talking about for grammar schools is capital spending. I  said in the course of my statement that the Department for Transport will continue the discussions on northern powerhouse rail with Transport for the North and will make announcements in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked specifically about social care. Opposition Members are fond of talking about cuts to social care budgets, but local authorities have to manage their budgets as they think best. They have to manage the envelope of resource that they are given. We have created a better care fund that will be delivering £1.5 billion a year into social care by the end of this Parliament. We have allowed local authorities to raise a social care precept, which will be delivering another £2 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. That is £3.5 billion a year of additional funding into the social care system. I accept that there is an issue that local authorities are raising—we have heard what they are saying—about profiling and how this large amount of additional money ramps up. My right hon. Friends the Health Secretary and the Communities and Local Government Secretary are extremely aware of the issue and I am discussing it with them.

Sarah Wollaston: The Care Quality Commission has warned that social care is at a tipping point and vulnerable people across the country are being left without the care and support that they need, which is adding hugely to costs for the NHS. I am disappointed that the better care fund has not yet been brought forward, but encouraged to hear that that is actively under discussion. Will the Chancellor confirm that we should try to get away from this divisive debate in the House about how we are going to fund our health and social care, and that all parties should work together for a new, sustainable, long-term settlement?

Philip Hammond: I am all in favour of discussing these big strategic questions in a grown-up way, trying to build a consensus across the House, but I see little interest from Opposition Members in doing that. We have made a commitment of £10 billion of additional funding for the NHS over this Parliament—[Interruption.] Yes, we have. It is £10 billion of additional funding by the end of this Parliament. A senior management team in the NHS has drawn up a plan, set the budget and asked for the money. It has been given the money and I think we should allow it to show what it can do.

Douglas Carswell: The Chancellor’s autumn statement suggests yet more public borrowing, with total public debt due to increase to £1.6 trillion in the new year and £1.9 trillion by 2020, when it will be four times what it was in 2005. Rather than being a reflection on Brexit, is not the accumulation of these unsustainable levels of public debt due to his predecessor’s failure to match words with deeds and get a grip on public spending?

Philip Hammond: No. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will not have had a chance to read the report, but when he does so, he will see that the big drivers of debt are: the deteriorating forecast for growth, which of course has a big impact; the structural change that appears to be taking place in the relationship between a given level of GDP and tax receipts—I mentioned in my statement that we will have to address that—and the measures  that the Bank of England took, which have a direct impact on public debt, but only in the short term, because they do unwind over the course of a few years.

Kit Malthouse: I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s significant commitment to British science today, regarding both research and commercialisation. As he moves towards his next Budget, may I urge him to look carefully at removing many of the regulatory barriers and at providing greater tax incentives for individuals to invest in science and technology start-ups so that we can start to build a true enterprise culture in which everybody participates?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend has been kind enough to come to see me over the past few weeks to make some suggestions in this area. I did announce in my statement that the Treasury will conduct a review of the availability of patient capital in this country, and I include in that genuine individual investment in start-up businesses and how we make sure that that is incentivised to stay in for the long haul. I thank him for his input and we will look at this further.

Rachel Reeves: May I start by associating myself with the comments made by the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor about the verdict in the Jo Cox trial? I hope that the whole-life sentence for Jo’s murderer can at least give some comfort to her family at this incredibly difficult time, and will also enable us to remember Jo for the way she lived, rather than the way she was murdered.
May I ask the Chancellor about the changes to universal credit that he announced today? The taper rate will now be 63p in the pound, which means that for every additional pound earned, the recipient of universal credit will lose 63p. That marginal tax rate is three times higher than the basic tax rate. Does he honestly think that sufficiently rewards work and encourages people to take on those extra hours that we all want them to do?

Philip Hammond: Again, I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s remarks. I am sure that she is right that the entirely sensible sentence that has been handed down will be a source of some comfort to the family.
The hon. Lady asks whether the taper rate is a disincentive or an incentive to work. Of course the lower the taper rate, the greater the incentive to work—I readily recognise that. I said in my statement that I had listened carefully to representations about doing something in this area and balanced those against my judgment about our fiscal capacity. I have funded every single spending commitment made today. If we had gone further than 63%, we would have had to raise more money somewhere else, and I judged that at the present time, that was not the right thing to do. I also gently remind her that 65%, never mind 63%, is a lot lower than a marginal withdrawal rate of 90%, which was what many people were facing under the tax credits system.

Antoinette Sandbach: May I welcome the steps that the Chancellor has taken to tackle some of the issues facing rural businesses, particularly the extension of rural rate relief and of fibre broadband? I particularly thank him for the £1.4 million that will be  going to the Alder centre, which will help to build a new building for the provision of counselling services across the north-west to bereaved parents. I know that the trustees are absolutely delighted.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I am delighted that, even in these difficult fiscal times, we are able to make these investments, which can be life-changing in local areas.

Sammy Wilson: So that there can be no doubt, may I welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive will have £250 million of additional capital spending, as well as the commitment to reduce corporation tax, which should lower the bill for the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland without damaging our ability to compete with the Republic? The Chancellor says that growth is still damagingly imbalanced across the United Kingdom. If the Northern Ireland Executive make sensible proposals of further measures to address that issue, will he pay attention and respond to those? Does he agree that his acceptance of the lower forecast of growth for the UK in the long term, despite the fact that it contradicts totally the short-term forecasts, can be self-fulfilling and can damage places such as Northern Ireland disproportionately when compared with other parts of the UK?

Philip Hammond: I am not sure that receiving the OBR report constitutes an acceptance of anything; the report is the report and we have to respond to it. The hon. Gentleman asks about the imbalance in growth; of course that is a problem, and increasing economic growth in Northern Ireland is a high priority. Wages and living standards are lower in Northern Ireland than we would like, and the only way to address that is to improve productivity, increase the size of the private sector and get more investment into Northern Ireland so that growth rates are increased. Obviously I will respond to any proposals that come from the Northern Ireland Executive. I cannot promise him how I will respond to them, but I can promise him that I will respond.

John Penrose: The extra investment in building affordable homes and infrastructure is excellent news. Does the Chancellor agree that cheaper homes are one of the most important ways of raising living standards for everyone and improving economic productivity? Will he therefore also support reported moves to increase the supply of urban house-building sites by allowing owners to build up, not out, to the height of other buildings in the same block without planning permission?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right to say that making sure that housing is affordable is not only a key social priority, but a key economic priority. As I said in my statement, it is clear that the unaffordability of housing, certainly in many areas of the country, has become a drag on productivity, economic growth and investment. Investment in housing not only advantages the economy, but directly helps families, so I am pleased that we have been able to do something on that front today. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will be bringing forward a housing White  Paper in due course and he will address the longer-term strategic problems, one of which is the subject of the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Luciana Berger: Further to the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), may I point out that there is not one mention in the 72-page autumn statement document of the words “NHS”, “social care”, “mental health” and “public health”? The Chancellor cannot ignore the fact that our health and social care services are in crisis and face massive deficits. Surely the many economists in his Department will have told him that it is economically illiterate to ignore the massive decrease in people receiving social care in the community, and the cuts to public health and NHS staff training. Why was the NHS missing from his autumn statement?

Philip Hammond: We have been round this loop before. We are putting £10 billion a year more into the national health service by the end of this Parliament. We are delivering exactly what the senior management of the national health service asked for, and we will work with them to ensure that it is effective, because the money has to be spent and delivered effectively. I keep in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He is working very closely with NHS management. I know that it is tempting for Opposition Members to paint everything as a crisis or to talk of looming chaos, but that is not the case. We have a programme for investment in the NHS. It is being delivered and we will keep a close eye on the way it is being delivered.

David Rutley: I welcome today’s announcement and the autumn statement. I am particularly pleased to welcome the extra £2 billion for research and development that was announced earlier this week—it is absolutely pivotal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will help to underpin our leadership in life sciences, which is a key sector for success in the northern powerhouse?

Philip Hammond: I completely agree. To be clear, by the end of the Parliament, an additional £2 billion a year will go into research and development. My hon. Friend is right that life sciences and synthetic biology are an area in which the UK has gained a really significant lead in a disruptive area of technology that will shape the future of our economy and the economy of the world. There are three or four such areas in which we really have to invest now to ensure that we get the critical footprint that will allow us to be leaders in this fourth industrial revolution, just as we were in the first industrial revolution.

Alistair Carmichael: May I welcome those elements of this statement that are positive? I am talking about the spending for infrastructure, especially in broadband and mobile phone signals, the reduction in fuel duty and the changes to universal credit. They are all steps in the right direction, but we wanted extra cash to be given to the NHS and social care, where it is needed, because as winter comes  on, we risk the problems becoming acute. I understand the difficulties that face the Chancellor today. He has a £122 billion black hole as a result of Brexit. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, instead of using the NHS as a political football, will he work with people of all parties and none to identify where that money can be found because, frankly, the NHS is too important to be treated like this?

Philip Hammond: First, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at the figures in a little more detail. The £122 billion that he quotes runs over a fifth year. It includes the £23 billion of discretionary additional commitments that I have made today, as well as more than £20 billion of baseline adjustments due to previous policy changes around welfare benefits and classification changes made by the ONS. He therefore really needs to look at the figures.
On the NHS, as I have said already, there are trust deficits building up across the country. At the moment, they are manageable within the context of the NHS’s own internal cash management system, but we will of course keep a close eye on them. We take the view that the NHS has asked for financing of a specific and defined plan. We have provided that financing. We now need to challenge NHS managers who have asked for that money to deliver the outcomes that they promised. We will watch very closely and stick close by as they do.

Stephen Hammond: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his first and last autumn statement. In particular, I warmly welcome the support for infrastructure. With regard to the investment for 140,000 new houses, may I ask him to consider the suggestion from the National Housing Federation that those affordable houses are built tenure-free so that they might be delivered more quickly?

Philip Hammond: I did say in the statement—my hon. Friend might have missed it—that we will relax the restrictions on tenure that are normally attached to affordable housing grant funding so that affordable housing providers can build with the mix of tenures that is right for the particular market in which they are operating. That will allow housing to be built more quickly, and housing need to be met more quickly.

Caroline Flint: The Prime Minister expressed outrage in her conference speech at the fact that two thirds of energy bill payers are paying over the odds on the standard variable tariff. That percentage has been confirmed by the Competition and Markets Authority. I first spoke about this five years ago, so it was disappointing that the problem was not mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech today. We should have a protective tariff and a cap for those on the standard variable rate. I understand that there are meetings across Whitehall to discuss that idea. Will he confirm or deny the rumours that a protective tariff, or a default tariff, is under discussion?

Philip Hammond: I will not confirm or deny what discussions are going on across Whitehall. I did say—I fully understand that the right hon. Lady might have missed it in the depths of the statement—that we are setting up a review of markets, including the retail   energy market, to ensure that they are operating fairly for consumers. Where we find that they are not, we will make proposals and take action.

Nigel Evans: I welcome the autumn statement. There is always a question on the beer industry, and here it is. Beer is taxed at three different levels depending on its alcohol by volume. The lowest rate is for beers with an ABV of 1.2% to 2.8% to try to attract consumers to less alcoholic beers. Will the Chancellor meet me, as president of the all-party beer group, to discuss the upper level, and perhaps raising it to 3.5%, with a view to attracting people away from those heavier alcoholic beers to lower-alcohol beers?

Philip Hammond: If my hon. Friend names the bar, I will meet him.

John Bercow: That was a splendidly pithy answer, but questions are becoming rather long. There are still nearly 50 Members seeking to contribute, and I am keen to accommodate them, but I can do so only if people can—to put it bluntly—abandon the preamble and get on with the pithy, preferably single-sentence, inquiry. I am sure that we can led in this by Caroline Lucas.

Caroline Lucas: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Disappointingly, this Chancellor has joined his predecessor in failing to mention the words “climate change” even just once anywhere in the statement. That is in the year that is set to be the hottest on record, when parts of the country are under floodwater. Can he justify continued handouts to the oil and gas sector when there is no assurance of support for clean energy post-2020, no reversal of the critical solar tax hike, and nothing on keeping homes warm this winter?

John Bercow: One sentence if it involved the abandonment of punctuation.

Philip Hammond: If the hon. Lady looks carefully at the statement, she will see that I did announce significant additional funding to pursue ultra-low emission vehicles. That is an area in which the UK is already a technology leader. I have also announced today that, from next April, there will be 100% first-year allowances on all electric charging infrastructure. We know that the biggest deterrent to moving to electric vehicles is the fear of being unable to charge them. Getting a widespread charging network rolled out will allow us to meet our ambition to electrify the fleet.

Stewart Jackson: Innovation and the condition of working people have always been priorities of the Conservative party. In that vein, I particularly welcome the fiscal changes in the autumn statement, especially regarding fuel duty, tax allowances and the national living wage, for which I campaigned for many years. May I just take the Chancellor back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)? Through the dispersal of public money for affordable housing, would it be possible to break the monopoly of housing associations  and local authorities? In mixed tenure sites, could we bring in local providers of affordable housing to deliver the homes that we all need?

Philip Hammond: This is not absolutely my area of expertise, but my understanding was that there already are opportunities for other providers to deliver affordable housing and to receive grant support to do so. I will look into that matter and, if I am wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend accordingly.

Jess Phillips: Like many Members, I welcome the £23 billion of infrastructure spending. Some 1% of people who currently work in the construction industry are women. Can the Chancellor tell me how many women’s jobs will be created by the £23 billion? Does he think that the tax that we women pay should sometimes pay for our own prosperity?

Philip Hammond: I am afraid to tell the hon. Lady that I do not have a ready answer for her on precisely how many women’s jobs will be created, but I do know that we have more women in work than ever before in this country and that our female participation rates are approaching the levels of the very highest rates in Scandinavian countries. I also know, because it is an area of interest to me, that more women are going into what one might describe as traditionally male preserves—engineering and construction—than ever before. That is a trend we should welcome enormously and encourage further.

Heidi Allen: I just want to say, “Thank you.” An awful lot of R and D funding will help my constituency. Scientific businesses in South Cambridgeshire have been worried since Brexit, so I thank my right hon. Friend for that. East-west rail links and road links will help us to spread that prosperity. Overall, I thank him for the money on universal credit. That was a difficult decision. It is not everything that we wanted, but I very much welcome the money that he put aside for universal credit, and I thank him.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her generous words.

Jonathan Edwards: The Chancellor quite rightly noted at the beginning of his statement that one of the big challenges that he faces is the gross wealth inequality in the British state—a task that will be made harder with the loss of EU structural funds—so is it his intention in future statements to announce a UK convergence fund to replace the lost EU regional money?

Philip Hammond: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concern. He will know that I have made two statements since becoming Chancellor seeking to reassure businesses, universities and others who apply for EU grant funding that, where they are successful in such applications, however long the funding runs on, we will underwrite it, so if Brussels does not foot the bill, the Treasury will. But he is absolutely right: we will have to put in place alternative arrangements for the period after we leave the EU. We will have to have a discussion with the devolved Administrations about how that works—between Whitehall and the devolved administrations—and once  we get into the negotiation with the EU, we can start to see the direction of travel. I think that it will then be appropriate to have this discussion, but I do recognise the concern.

Jeremy Quin: As the Chancellor pointed out, we have a major productivity issue to address. I look forward to the Green Paper and the benefits of the £23 billion of targeted investment, but may I congratulate him on making that £23 billion-worth of investment within a fiscal framework that is reliable, sustainable and will continue to bring down the record deficit that this Government inherited from Labour?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and we have embarked on the right course of action to protect our economy for the future and to ensure that it can take full advantage of the opportunities that will be available to it.

Louise Ellman: I welcome the reference to the northern powerhouse and Transport for the North—with details to follow—but will the Chancellor tell us whether there is any more funding, so that we can invest in better transport across the north?

Philip Hammond: I welcome the question from a former Transport Committee Chairman—[Hon. Members: “She still is!”] All right. I welcome the question even more. If I remember rightly, she was the Chairman when I was a member of the Select Committee, so she probably gets the prize for longevity.
I have deliberately chosen not to read out great, long lists of specific projects and allocations of funding, but rather to create a framework, and what I said in the statement—I will repeat it now—is that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will make a series of announcements about the detailed allocations over the coming weeks.

Maggie Throup: May I ask the Chancellor to urge the Transport Secretary to spend some of the £1.1 billion on a new motorway junction between junctions 25 and 26 on the M1, which would undoubtedly improve growth and productivity in my constituency?

Philip Hammond: One of my thoughts in deciding not to announce all the allocations personally was that I would avoid the lobbying for individual projects. I had not realised that I would be invited to act as a conduit to the Transport Secretary, but in this case and because it is my hon. Friend, I will pass on her request.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I must advise the House that I have noticed a growing split within the Chamber between the glowerers and the smilers—Members deploying different techniques in a bid to be called. Some have very beatific smiles and others—

George Kerevan: Which works?

John Bercow: A smile is more effective.

Rosena Allin-Khan: Affordable house building last year fell to its lowest level since 1991. In my borough, Wandsworth, the Conservative council approved the building of over 10,000 homes at Battersea power station and Nine Elms, 13% of which were deemed affordable. However, the cheapest home there is a studio flat costing £400,000. These are not genuinely affordable homes for local residents; they are used as gold bricks for overseas developers. Can the Chancellor tell me today what is an affordable home?

Philip Hammond: There are two points here. We have, of course, a definition of affordable housing, which we use in statutory terms, but there is a much broader consensus in the House that we need to make all housing across the UK more affordable, including housing that people buy in the marketplace. To do that, we have to address fundamentally some of the challenges with land supply, particularly in London and other high-demand areas. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Communities and Local Government Secretary will introduce a housing White Paper, which will address these more strategic issues.

Stephen Metcalfe: There is much to be welcomed in the Chancellor’s statement, particularly the warm words about the strength of our science and technology endeavours, especially in the light of the recent Science and Technology Committee report that called for a rise in spending on R and D to 3% of GDP. Obviously, the extra £2 billion is a helpful step in that direction, but to realise the potential and deliver on those ambitions, we need to attract the best talents here to the UK. Will my right hon. Friend work with colleagues across the Government not only to reassure scientists and researchers who are already here, but to come up with a system as soon as possible to attract the best people into the UK?

Philip Hammond: I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments as Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. Of course, the £2 billion a year referred to is just public investment in R and D. Most investment in R and D in this country is done by the private sector. As the Prime Minister said in her speech to the CBI on Monday, we are committed to looking at the R and D tax credit system to make sure that the UK is the most attractive place for an innovative company to do its research, development and innovation.
On immigration, I absolutely recognise the points that my hon. Friend makes. Many companies that choose to locate in the UK depend on being able to bring people with high skills into the UK to work in their businesses. I have said before and I am happy to say again today that, although it is our clear intention to introduce controls on migration into the UK from the European Union, I cannot conceive of any circumstances where we would use those controls to strangle investment in our businesses by not allowing high-skilled, high-paid individuals to be transferred here to work in them.

Helen Goodman: The most alarming number in the OBR forecast is the 13% drop in forecast business investment, and the Chancellor said it himself: the big problem is uncertainty. The OBR says rather plaintively:
“we asked the Government for ‘a formal statement of policy as regard its desired trade regime…as a basis for our projections’”
but they left us
“little the wiser.”
The Chancellor had a real opportunity today to tackle this uncertainty, which is the basic problem, by setting out the objectives for the Brexit negotiations to keep us with access to the single market and in the customs union. Why did he not do so?

Philip Hammond: I did not, because to do so would be to give away our negotiating cards in what will be a very complex negotiation. With respect to the hon. Lady, even if I or the Prime Minister set out precisely our objectives, our tactics and our strategy for the negotiations, that will not remove the uncertainty because the outcome will depend on the negotiation itself. As the Prime Minister has said, a negotiation is a process of give and take between the parties to get to a mutually acceptable outcome, and that is what will be embarked upon.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I congratulate the Chancellor on his excellent statement? I draw his attention to page 96 of the OBR report, which sets out the assumptions in relation to Brexit. It seems to me that there are two problems with those assumptions. First, they assume that we will apply tariffs on the same basis as we do inside the European Union, which the Chancellor will know he will be able to remove. Secondly, they are particularly gloomy on the prospects for financial services. Might we be able to take a slightly more optimistic tone and, with the freedoms that we have outside the customs union and the single market, be able to solve the productivity problem?

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend will know, the OBR is mandated to report by Parliament and I am mandated to respond on behalf of the Government to the OBR’s findings. It is an independent body. It does receive representations, and I suggest that my hon. Friend makes his concerns known to the OBR.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: From the abundance of smiling Scottish nationalist countenances, I choose Mr George Kerevan.

George Kerevan: I congratulate the Chancellor on abolishing the autumn statement and the spring Budget, and introducing a spring statement and an autumn Budget. I trust that that is not his definition of productivity. The OBR central forecast suggests that after 2019 there will be a precipitate fall in the contribution by business investment to GDP growth. In addition, there will be a negative contribution from trade. Does that not suggest that when Britain leaves the single market—if we are taken out of the single market—the only thing between a recession and growth will be public expenditure and an overheated housing market?

Philip Hammond: On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I recognise that the fact that we have to respond to the OBR report in the spring can easily be caricatured as swapping an autumn statement and a spring Budget for a spring statement and an autumn Budget. All I can say  is that I promise it will not be like that. The intention is clearly to move to a single event each year when, in normal times, we will make tax changes, but it is prudent, especially in these times, to reserve the right in extremis to announce tax measures at the secondary event, if absolutely necessary. The hon. Gentleman poses a perfectly sensible question. My interpretation of the figures in the table is not the same as his, but I would be very happy to engage in a discussion with him offline.

James Cartlidge: Although my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is not a conduit for the Transport Secretary, may I nevertheless welcome the £80 million for smart ticketing included in his statement? He is interested in productivity and our flexible labour market. Is he aware that we have many constituents who commute three or four days a week at most and are forced to pay for a full-time travelcard? In his programme of smart ticketing, will he look at that?

Philip Hammond: I am aware because I was once upon a time the Transport Secretary. I am convinced that smart ticketing is the future for us. Smart ticketing allows us not only to deal with those commuters who do not travel every day, but to explore options where people might wish to travel in the peak period on some days but are able to travel off-peak on other days. If we could shift just 10% or 15% of commuters from the peak to the off-peak, we would change dramatically the pressure on rail infrastructure around London and other major cities, so that is definitely the future.

Alison McGovern: May I return the Chancellor to the OBR’s statement that the Government’s reply on their Brexit position left the OBR “little the wiser”? The OBR has assumed that the Government will fail to meet their target of reducing immigration to tens of thousands. Given the Prime Minister’s recent statements on immigration being her priority, has the Chancellor gone back to the OBR and asked it to adjust that forecast?

Philip Hammond: No. The Prime Minister has been very clear that it remains her target to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, but she has also been clear that it will take time to achieve. The OBR forecast stretches over a period of five years, and the Prime Minister is absolutely clear that this is a target that will be achieved over a longer timeframe in order to manage the impact on the economy.

Charlie Elphicke: I congratulate the Chancellor on an excellent first and last autumn statement. May I draw his attention to page 40 of the Green Book at paragraph 4.35, which I welcome? It states:
“The fuel duty rate will remain frozen for the seventh successive year, saving motorists around £130 a year compared to what they would have been paying under the pre-2010 escalator.”
This is a good autumn statement for drivers.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments and I am glad he is pleased with the statement. I know that he takes a great interest in matters related to  fuel duty and vehicle taxation, and I look forward to continuing to engage with him on those issues in the future.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I remind the Chancellor that the labour market is not working for everyone. Every single year since 2014 I have asked why this Government are allowing the continued exploitation of workers under sham umbrella companies and false self-employment. Every single year I am told that the matter is under review. As the GMB’s recent success in the court shows, these workers are fed up with waiting. Why is it that under this Government a fair day’s work never really translates into a fair day’s pay?

Philip Hammond: First, the hon. Lady will find if she looks in the autumn statement document that we are moving to shut down an abuse of the VAT flat rate scheme that has been used by employment agencies to disguise employment remuneration. But she is right about self-employment, and I also mentioned specifically the increasing challenge of incorporation—the increasing number of single-person, zero-employee, single-director companies. The Prime Minister has asked Matthew Taylor to undertake a review of ways of working—

Emma Lewell-Buck: It has been going on for two years.

Philip Hammond: No, it has not been going on for two years. Let me tell the hon. Lady what happened. The Prime Minister took office in July, so it definitely has not been going on for two years. She asked Matthew Taylor to undertake that review, which is now under way. It is a very important review, looking at how employment rights more generally are being affected by this transition in our economy. That is being driven by technology, as much as anything, and I have said today that we also have to look at this issue from the point of view of the tax base, because the tax base is also under threat from these changes.

David Burrowes: I thank the Chancellor for helping low-income families today and, for helping to make work pay for those on universal credit. I thank him, too, for the London devolution deal for housing, which will increase the number of affordable homes to rent and to buy. Can he reassure me, though, that this is not a destination but a direction of travel and that, whether it be spring, autumn or any season, we will continue to stand up for working families and for the weak?

Philip Hammond: Absolutely. My hon. Friend knows very well that our stated ambition and the driver in everything we do is to build an economy that works for everyone, but we are realists, unlike the fantasists on the Opposition Front Bench. We know that we can build an economy that works for everyone only if it is a strong economy with strong investment and good, strong British companies exporting their products around the world.

Margaret Ritchie: Although I regret that there is no help for those WASPI women who need transitional protection, I welcome the investment in broadband infrastructure. Can the Chancellor assure the House that that will be fairly spread across rural  communities and throughout all devolved and non-devolved jurisdictions to prevent further broadband inequalities opening up across Northern Ireland and Britain?

Philip Hammond: The money that we are investing will be used partly to fund pilots, particularly to cement our lead in 5G, and partly to catalyse private sector investment. Our telecoms infrastructure is primarily funded by private investment, but I can assure the hon. Lady that this funding will be spread across the United Kingdom. We want to spread the benefits of 5G and superfast broadband as widely as we possibly can.

Ben Howlett: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to colleagues on our side of the House who have long campaigned hard for more investment in regional infrastructure, R and D, and innovation. The £683 million towards south-west regional local growth funding and the £1.1 billion English transport fund will make a big difference to constituencies such as mine. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the west of England devolved authority and the new Mayor to ensure that we better unlock productivity, more growth and the jobs that we require in the west of England?

Philip Hammond: As far as we are concerned, that is the principal purpose of the mayoral combined authorities: yet another lever to drive productivity in the English regions. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will be happy to work with my hon. Friend on that project.

Stewart McDonald: I am always shining on you, Mr Speaker.
The Chancellor is no philistine, so he will know that Lloyd George, a predecessor of his, visited Holmwood House in my constituency in 1928. Although the right hon. Gentleman appears to have dismissed my appeal for restorative funding for the building next year as we approach the bicentenary of its architect, will he assure me that this is not quite the end of the road? Will he commit, as the Scottish Secretary has done, to engaging positively on the matter in future?

Philip Hammond: The danger, of course, of having indulged myself with one specific announcement is that hon. Members are bound to assume that that means bad news for other projects. The bulk of the funding available for that kind of work will be held and distributed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will make announcements as appropriate.

Mims Davies: The gross value added of my constituency, like that of many constituencies in Hampshire, is affected by missing junctions on the M27, the queues on the M3 and poor east-west connectivity. Chickenhall link road in my constituency is vital to facilitate a longer runway at Southampton airport. It will tackle air pollution and unlock potential housing. Will the Chancellor make a statement about the local majors fund and how that will play into this autumn statement?

Philip Hammond: No; I am sorry to say that to my hon. Friend. What I have done today is added £23 billion-worth of infrastructure and R and D expenditure to existing very significant budgets. Part of that will go to transport  and some of that will go to road schemes, but it will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to listen to the representations that my hon. Friend and others are making and to allocate the fund, according to the appropriate principles, to maximise productivity growth in our economy. I am sure that he will be delighted to talk to her.

Seema Malhotra: Schools in my constituency are not alone in stepping in to fill the welfare gap, as parents on the breadline hit by Government cuts struggle to buy their children’s school uniforms, shoes and stationery. The situation is getting worse—in the 21st century. What impact does the Chancellor believe his projected 8% per-pupil spending cuts, as estimated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, will have on the social mobility of a generation of children? How can it be right that instead of softening the cuts, for which he voted, he has instead chosen to spend £60 million a year on expanding grammar schools? What I have raised should have been part of his plan for productivity.

Philip Hammond: I do not agree with the hon. Lady; she needs to look at these things in the round. I know that Labour Members like to take a single example and exaggerate it, but they need to look at the package in the round: what we are doing with raising personal allowances for taxation for people in work, dramatically reducing the tax that they pay; taking millions of people out of taxation; and a pay rise for millions of people from the national living wage. The hon. Lady should look at it in the round.

Justin Tomlinson: I welcome the news on universal credit, but support is also vital. I urge the Chancellor to support the extension of the DWP’s excellent small employer pilot, which is already helping those with disabilities and long-term health conditions.

Philip Hammond: The Department for Work and Pensions has some excellent programmes and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions confirms to me that he has adequate funding for all those programmes.

Kirsty Blackman: The oil and gas industry has a bright future. When will the Chancellor implement the tangible changes that his predecessor committed to on both decommissioning tax relief and loan guarantees? The industry needs those measures to secure current investment and so secure increased future productivity.

Philip Hammond: Yes; I have confirmed again today that we will proceed with those measures. We will proceed with them as quickly as we possibly can.

Ranil Jayawardena: There has been a lot of negativity from some Opposition Members, but more people are in jobs than ever before and that means that in North East Hampshire more people are in good jobs, with average earnings of more than £47,000. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on committing to increasing the tax-free allowance   but on raising the threshold for the higher rate? Clearly, many hard-working families are being hit by a tax that was never intended for them.

Philip Hammond: That is absolutely right. We made that commitment in our election manifesto; it was a commitment on which we were elected. Despite the difficult fiscal circumstances, we will deliver on that commitment.

Wes Streeting: I thank the Chancellor for agreeing to the request made by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) to reintroduce the distributional analysis of the Budget. I have looked at that analysis and, in spite of a bit of tinkering with the methodology, it is clear that, as a result of the tax and welfare changes in this autumn statement, the bottom three deciles—the lowest-income households—will be left worse off than the highest earning group of households. How can he possibly justify that? As well as helping the “just about managing”, will he commit also to helping the people who are barely managing or cannot manage at all?

Philip Hammond: Our intention will be to try to ensure the fairest distribution possible. I welcome the debate that the hon. Gentleman and others have stimulated on the appropriate way to present distributional analysis—the issue is not completely cut and dried or straightforward—but I say this to him: we were elected on a manifesto commitment to get welfare under control. Working-age welfare had spun out of control between 1980 and 2010. We have now got it back under control, which implies that we have had to take some tough decisions. We have taken them. I will accept and explain the consequences of those.

Mark Pawsey: To support those who are just about managing, there need to be more affordable houses. Is the Chancellor pleased to see the welcome from the chief executive of the National Housing Federation for today’s measures that will enable an additional 40,000 such houses to be provided? With planning consents running at the highest level for years, does my right hon. Friend look forward to the sector getting spades into the ground very quickly?

Philip Hammond: Yes. One of the attractions of funding affordable housing is that it is a tried and tested and generally pretty efficient delivery method. I am afraid that while I stand at the Dispatch Box, I am not digitally enabled, as they say: I was not aware of the welcome that my hon. Friend refers to. However, I am delighted that this has gone down as I hoped it would with the relevant people.

Alison Thewliss: I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised, that there has been no reversal from the Government on the two-child policy and the rape clause, which will mean that people cannot possibly work their way out of the situation they are in. May I ask about another group of people who cannot work their way out of the situation they are in? I am talking about the new “pretendy living wage” rate. That will leave 16 and 17-year-olds £3.45 worse off than  someone of 25 doing the same job. Why is the labour of 16 and 17-year-olds worth less to the Chancellor than that of those aged 25?

Philip Hammond: We judge that getting people into the workforce, even at entry-level jobs, is critically important. There is abundant evidence that if people get into a culture of worklessness at a young age, that will blight their lives for ever.

Alison Thewliss: Pay them properly!

Philip Hammond: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Lady this, but we live in the real world, where people will be employed only if employers can afford to take them on at the wage rates they have to pay them. Getting these young people into the culture of work is the most important thing we can do for them, for the rest of their lives.

Huw Merriman: In East Sussex, we have the challenge of a large social care bill for an ageing population and low business rate returns to pay for that. I am aware that the Chancellor will not be allocating county money, but may I ask that his £23 billion investment fund is allocated with East Sussex’s financial and demographic challenge in mind?

Philip Hammond: I am afraid I may have to disappoint my hon. Friend, because the £23 billion is specifically targeted at productivity-enhancing investment in R and D and infrastructure. That is because we judge that, with our level of debt, to be credible in the markets, we have to borrow only for that kind of additional productivity-enhancing investment, and it will go into network investment, R and D and innovation.

Angela Smith: The statement about Wentworth Woodhouse is very welcome economic news for South Yorkshire, but it failed the graciousness test, because it omitted to pay tribute to the campaign led by the formidable Julie Kenny to save the house. However, South Yorkshire needs much better transport links if it is to succeed economically. On that basis, why has only one of the five strategic road projects—the Oxford to Cambridge expressway—been given the go-ahead today? Is South Yorkshire going to get its trans-Pennine tunnel link or not?

Philip Hammond: As I tried to make abundantly clear, I am intending to move away from a micromanagement approach to the budgets of my right hon. Friends, who are perfectly capable of evaluating the arguments, making the decisions and announcing them themselves, and that is what will happen in future. What I will say to the hon. Lady is that I did have the pleasure of meeting Julie, who explained to me the very considerable efforts that have been made so far, and I am delighted that we have been able to support that project.

Richard Drax: I warmly welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend of increased infrastructure spending, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not plug the rail connection—not least at Yeovil junction—that will take faster trains to my constituency, where roads are at a premium and we  cannot, because we have beautiful countryside, have more tarmac. Can I just tell him that we shall be coming to seek his help with that?

Philip Hammond: To be consistent, I would have to direct my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, who, I am sure, will be delighted to hear his representation.

Jack Dromey: Why should anyone believe the promises being made by a Conservative Government pretending to be the friend of working people and the party of the working class, when but six weeks ago workers were promised a seat on the board of the companies that employ them and a voice in their own future, only for that promise to be broken six weeks later, on Monday of this week, by the Prime Minister?

Philip Hammond: That is not what happened. I am afraid I am not responsible, and nor is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, for what newspapers choose to write in their headlines. What she said, what she believes and what she is committed to is ensuring that there are proper channels for the voices of consumers and workers to be heard at board level in companies, so that those voices can be taken into account in a proper way in decision-making processes—and that is what will happen.

Chris Philp: I join colleagues in welcoming the £1.1 billion infrastructure spending, particularly as the Brighton main line is falling apart and needs fixing if we are to enhance the productivity of Croydon constituents and others. What reassurance can the Chancellor give the hundreds of thousands of people using this line that the Transport Secretary will look at upgrading and fixing that infrastructure?

Philip Hammond: I can certainly guarantee that the Transport Secretary will look at it. What I am afraid I cannot guarantee for my hon. Friend is where it will be prioritised in the rail investment programme—as he knows, it is a very long-term programme. What I have done today is announce specific funding for piloting and trials of digital railways. This is another transformative area, because if we can get trains on main line railways running at the kind of headways we are used to on the London underground, for example, we will not need to build expensive additional infrastructure; we will be able to squeeze a lot more juice out of the infrastructure we have, and that is my preferred route forward.

Patrick Grady: In light of the move to an autumn Budget, will the Chancellor listen carefully to any recommendations from the Procedure Committee about reform of the estimates process, particularly in terms of opportunities for us on Scotland’s Benches to scrutinise Barnett consequentials, which we were told we would be able to do through estimates as a result of the English votes for English laws process that was introduced?

Philip Hammond: I will certainly look at the point the hon. Gentleman raises. I do hope he welcomes the move to an autumn Budget. Certainly, one of the considerations  when we were looking at this was the way it will interact with the Scottish Government’s Budget, and I hope it will be helpful.

Iain Stewart: I warmly welcome the investment in rail and road links from Oxford to Cambridge through Milton Keynes, delivering on the infrastructure commission’s recommendations. I have been campaigning for east-west rail for many years. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that investment will accelerate delivery of the project?

Philip Hammond: Yes, it will accelerate delivery of the project. As I said in my statement, and I cannot emphasise enough, I think this has the potential to be so much more than just a transport link. We have many world-famous universities, but we have two there that, more than any others, are world-famous, recognised research names. Linking them together over a 60-mile stretch of road and rail unleashes enormous possibilities for creating a new tech corridor, building on the huge success of the Cambridge science park.

Chris Stephens: In his statement, the Chancellor correctly mentioned the scourge of tax avoidance. Has he seen the report published last week by the Public and Commercial Services union and the Tax Justice Network, which warns that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff believe that its office closure programme
“will negatively affect its staff and its ability to collect tax and enforce tax compliance”?
Will he review the HMRC office closure programme as a result of those concerns?

Philip Hammond: We have put £800 million of additional resource into HMRC. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the statement today, he will see that we have put some more money in today. But much of the way in which HMRC operates is about having specialist units, which often have to be concentrated; it is not about the old local office structure that has traditionally been in place. If we want effective action against the most complex forms of tax avoidance and evasion, we have to be prepared to go with the recommendations of the experts.

Kevin Foster: I listened carefully to the Chancellor’s autumn statement, and I then carefully read the Green Book to find the reference to the resilience of the Dawlish coastal railway on page 29. I know he is not doing individual schemes, but am I right in assuming that the inclusion of this £10 million preparation project and work is an indication that the massive infrastructure investment that has been talked about is likely to include the nearly £300 million project to secure that line, which this work is the preparation for?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend can take this as a clear indication that this is a high priority in terms of rail resilience. We are all acutely aware of the vulnerability of the rail system in the south-west as a result of flood risk, and this is the first step to resolving that.

Nick Smith: Given the decline in the value of sterling, how much will we have to pay for the F-35 fighters to go on our aircraft carriers? The  present going rate is $100 million a time. Has the Chancellor increased his estimate of the cost of these fighters and other defence kit imports for future years?

Philip Hammond: It is a fair question, and the answer is that the Ministry of Defence, unusually among Government Departments, has the ability, and does in practice use the ability, to hedge currency risk, because so much of its capital expenditure programme is denominated in US dollars. So it does have a degree of protection over the coming years; that protection will not last forever, and if sterling’s current relative weakness against the US dollar persists, we will have to revisit this. But I would hope and expect that, as the cloud of uncertainty around the British economy disperses in due course, and people are able to see the strong prospects for this economy in the future, we will see sterling gradually finding its feet again.

Owen Thompson: I welcome the fact that the Edinburgh south-east Scotland city deal is still in today’s autumn statement, but the local authorities involved in this process have been making plans for it for more than two years. In June, they were expecting sign-off by December, but we have not seen anything come forward yet. Can the Chancellor confirm when the city deal will finally get sign-off?

Philip Hammond: No, I cannot. We are committed to, and engaged in, the process, and I have just confirmed that today, but, obviously, there are things that have to be agreed between the parties. I am not into the details of the negotiation on Edinburgh, but we clearly have to get to a conclusion as quickly as possible to see that the benefits are delivered to the people of Edinburgh. I hope the hon. Gentleman will urge the city council to engage enthusiastically in getting this done.

Simon Danczuk: I am interested in the National Infrastructure Commission investment and the money that is going to LEPs in the north of England—that is to be welcomed. I accept that the Chancellor has said that the Transport Secretary will be making an announcement very soon, but does the Chancellor not agree that money for the electrification of the Calder Valley rail line would help improve productivity in the area and redress the imbalance in the country?

Philip Hammond: I am not going to be tempted, as a former Transport Secretary, to get into the weeds of my right hon. Friend’s portfolio and talk about specifics of individual projects on the rail network, but, as I said, he will be making a statement in the near future.

Roger Mullin: Will the Chancellor confirm that the assumption on pages 241 to 248 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” not only means that all forecast numbers will be subject to high margins of error but implies that the Government will fail to achieve single market membership?

Philip Hammond: No, it does not imply that. However, it is the case, as I have said, that the OBR has acknowledged specifically that there is a higher degree of uncertainty around its forecasts this autumn than there is usually, for reasons that are obvious.

Mark Durkan: Having opposed the welfare cap as a search engine for cuts, may I at least acknowledge in passing the projected increases that are allowed in the statement? On devolution, the Chancellor rightly waxed positive about city deals in Scotland and in Wales, as he has on those in England. Will he be more than passive in his encouragement to the Northern Ireland Executive, who have been persistently derelict on these prospects?

Philip Hammond: Yes. I am not sure how much influence I will have over the Northern Ireland Executive, but next time I bump into a Member of it, I shall make that very point.

Stuart McDonald: According to the OBR, the fall in immigration following the referendum will cost the Chancellor £16 billion over five years. Surely he should be a brave and enthusiastic champion of free movement of people, with his next-door neighbour.

Philip Hammond: The Prime Minister has made it clear that we have to accept not only the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, but that clearly implied in that decision is a desire for control over movement across our borders. That is not the same as cutting ourselves off from Europe, or turning our backs on Europe, but there has to be control of the flow of people into the United Kingdom. The challenge, therefore, is to get a deal that effectively allows our businesses and workers to sell their products into Europe, and European businesses and workers to sell their products into the UK, while still meeting the political mandate that we have received from the British people.

Greg Mulholland: Leeds remains the biggest city in Europe without a light rail or an underground scheme. I welcome the announcement on transport infrastructure to tackle congestion. Can some of that money go towards the existing £250 million that could be used on a ground-breaking light rail scheme that could connect with Leeds Bradford airport, which does not have any fixed rail link?

Philip Hammond: I am afraid I am just going to repeat that I am not going to get into the weeds of trying to allocate every pound of funding that I announce in these statements to specific projects. This must be an issue for my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.

Alan Brown: The Green Book confirms a £1 billion shale wealth fund, but after more than four decades we are still awaiting an oil fund in Scotland. However, the big ask is on loan guarantees. Given that the Thames tideway project got a £4.2 billion loan guarantee, can the Chancellor confirm the value of loan guarantees for oil and gas as soon as possible?

Philip Hammond: I have announced today that the UK loan guarantee scheme will be extended until at least 2016. It has a very significant amount of headroom; I think the cap on it at the moment is £40 billion, and we are nowhere near using up that capacity. The important thing about the UK loan guarantee scheme is that it underpins projects at an early stage. Many projects have  gone ahead without loan guarantees, but because they had a commitment on the loan guarantee they were able to proceed and then eventually were able to get funding without it. It is playing a very important role that is understated by the measure of guarantees actually issued.

Tom Elliott: On the shale wealth fund, is the £1 billion totally Treasury money or is some of it coming from the companies that will be developing the shale gas project?

Philip Hammond: It is money coming from the companies.

Points of Order

Simon Hoare: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As exchanges this afternoon have underscored, the national health service, and the facts about it, are crucial for all our constituents. In yesterday’s debate, the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), to whom I have given notice of this point of order, declared: “Our”—that is, the Labour party’s—
“manifesto was very clear that we would put in £2.5 billion immediately”,
and then his addition,
“plus whatever was needed.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 859.]
In fact, the 2015 Labour party manifesto said:
“we will introduce a tax on properties worth over £2 million to help raise…£2.5 billion”.
There was no mention of “plus whatever was needed”. We all know that our constituents are looking for veracity and truth with regard to the health service. I am perfectly certain that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the public or this House, or to make this slip, but could you advise me, Sir, on how best to place on the record this corrected point so that the public can see the veracity of the argument?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has just found his own salvation, as the puckish grin on his face suggests he realises.

Jon Ashworth: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, and further to the desire of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for veracity and truth, can I get your guidance on Government claims that they are spending an extra £10 billion on the national health service? I asked the UK Statistics Authority to look into this, and when it wrote to me this week it told me that an issue that has
“caused confusion is that while NHS England spending is rising, some other elements of the Department of Health budget are decreasing.”
The authority continues that it
“will be asking that HM Treasury investigate whether in future they can present estimates for NHS England and total health spending separately.”
Given this guidance, and given that there is not one extra penny piece announced by the Chancellor today for health and social care, can you, Mr Speaker, use your good offices to ensure that the Prime Minister and other Ministers desist from using this bogus claim?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. All Members, including Ministers, are responsible for the veracity of what they say in this House. The hon. Gentleman has formed his own view about this. There are a variety of methods open to him to draw attention to his views, which I know are very important, especially to him, but it is on the whole preferable that it should not be done through incessant points of order for the Chair when, whatever the merits of the case, they are in fact nothing of the kind.

Chris Stephens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the strategic defence and security review last year, it was reported that the national shipbuilding strategy and the Government’s response to it would be published by the time of the autumn statement. Sadly, the strategy and the report have not yet been published. Could I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether you have received any indication from any Minister from the Ministry of Defence whether they will make a statement today on the industry, which is iconic and highly skilled and which affects many of my constituents?

John Bercow: The short answer is no. I have received no such indication. However, knowing what an assiduous and eager beaver the hon. Gentleman is, I feel sure that he will be in his place for the business question tomorrow and veritably leaping to his feet in order to request a statement or a debate on this important matter.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE  (VOTER PROOF OF IDENTITY)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Chris Green: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require those on the electoral register to produce proof of identity at polling stations before voting; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to bring the electoral rules used in Northern Ireland to elections for the rest of the United Kingdom, to reduce electoral fraud and ensure that our elections continue to be both fair and free. Our democratic system, and especially the way we vote, is based on trust. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which observes elections across the world, has raised concerns about trust-based electoral systems and their potential to be abused, and about the vulnerabilities of the UK system.
A polling station is a place in which a ballot can be cast in secrecy and free from any external influence; it is the individual’s decision for whom to vote. The role of polling station staff is to ensure that voters can cast their vote in secret, free from undue influence and in a calm atmosphere. We have all heard the phrase “vote early and vote often”, but it appears that that is increasingly happening. In some polling districts where the population is stable with a high turnout, repeat visitors will be noticed by the staff at the polling station, especially if the staff have worked the same station for a series of local and general elections. Repeat visits will be far harder to spot, and the polling station staff less confident to challenge them, where turnout is low and there is a more transient population, because a far greater proportion of voters will be unfamiliar.
As society changes, we have to assess whether our traditional “trust” system of voting needs to change, because it risks becoming outdated and being undermined. Our democracy is a living thing, and we have reformed and developed it over time. All the measures taken by Parliament in the past to improve free and fair voting, such as the Ballot Act 1872 and the Representation of the People Act 1918, were made in the interests of the electorate and of democracy. We are now approaching a time when an improvement must again be made so that we do not lose our democratic integrity, which has evolved over time and which must evolve again.
In recent years, concerns about the integrity of our voting system have been building in a wide range of areas. I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the independent review and report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), the Government’s anti-corruption champion, who concluded:
“To retain the integrity of our democracy, we need to introduce more rigour into the processes we use”.
His comprehensive report highlights a whole range of concerns and suggests actions to put them right. No doubt many colleagues in this place will share those concerns and will be aware of problems in their own constituencies. Because of its nature, the level of fraud, particularly personation at polling stations, is difficult  to gauge, but that does not mean that it is not happening or that simple steps should not be taken to stop it happening.
Electoral abuse was evident on a significant scale in Northern Ireland before the requirement to produce identification was introduced 30 years ago, and the situation was further improved in 2003 with the requirement for photo ID. Although I appreciate that some may have reservations about that requirement deterring people from voting, in Northern Ireland the number of people who do not vote because of a lack of suitable ID is very small. There is a strong case to be made that the use of ID may, in fact, increase voter turnout; some people do not vote after losing their polling card, which they do not actually need to bring in order to cast their ballot.
When we see a problem and contemplate a solution, we have to ask ourselves whether the cure is worse than the disease—whether requiring people to have suitable identification to participate in democracy is too big a hurdle. If someone buying cigarettes or alcohol was asked for ID we would hardly think it a problem. When we pick up a package from the Royal Mail collection office we may think that having to show proof of identity is rather a good thing. We have to prove who we are in so many different circumstances that it can hardly be viewed as a problem to have to do so when directly participating in something so important as democracy.
I wish to make it very clear that the Bill does not represent a move to create a national identity card or a way to keep a check on people. It is simply a move to add voting to the list of many things that require identification. Identification does not have to take one single form; for example, when we collect our post from the post office 20 forms of ID are acceptable, from a birth certificate to a bank statement or passport. Northern Ireland allows seven different forms of photo ID for voting, including an electoral identity card, which is provided free of charge.
The purpose of requiring ID is not to create a barrier for people but simply to prevent fraud and enhance the integrity of the voting system. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the Electoral Commission all recommend the use of ID in voting.
Britain has a formidable history as the mother of Parliaments, and the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy has been adopted by many other nations. If our model falls into disrepute and fails, that will be bad for democracy the world over; if we sit back and allow that to happen for fear of change, we will be in the wrong. We cannot and should not sacrifice the integrity of our democratic system. Challenging issues of community cohesion and political engagement must be taken into account, but they must never be an excuse for failing to act to uphold the rule of law.
I ask that the Bill be introduced, so that electors are confident in their democratic system, and so that those entitled to vote may do so and, as in Northern Ireland, we minimise personation and fraud in polling stations in Great Britain.

John Spellar: I see from the profile of the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) that he is an engineer. Frankly, if someone had put a project   to him with such a singular lack of evidence as this has, I am sure he would have thrown it in the bin, which is what should happen to this miserable Bill. It comes straight out of the Donald Trump, US Republican, Conservative central office school of disinformation.
As we have seen in the United States, such measures are a blatant attempt to depress voter turnout. Very interestingly, the hon. Gentleman gave that away. He talked about areas with stable populations, and there being a problem in areas with a transient population. What was he talking about, I wonder? Basically, he was saying that things are all right in Tory areas, but we must have a problem in city Labour areas. He gave the game away very easily.
Of course, in a democracy it is very difficult to justify denying people the right to vote, so a mythology has to be developed that there is widespread and significant voter fraud. In the post-truth, post-fact world, that becomes easier to spread. But let us look at the data and the facts, starting with the United States, where this conspiracy theory comes from—Donald Trump was repeating it only recently. There has been a detailed study: under Republican President George W. Bush, the US Justice Department was tasked with searching for voter fraud. From 197,056,035 votes cast in the two federal elections in the period studied, just 26 people were convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration or voting.
Let us not rely only on the United States, although that is where this idea has come from; let us look at the United Kingdom and the Electoral Commission report on elections in 2015. At the 2015 general election, 31 million votes were cast; in the local elections that year, many on the same day as the general election, 20 million were cast; and there were about 400,000 cast in mayoral elections. How many cases of fraud were there? Let us have a look. There were 123 cases relating to voting offences. Remember, 31 million votes were cast. The 123 figure includes: voting offences; personation—voting as someone else; breaches of secrecy requirements; tampering with ballot papers; bribery; cheating; and undue influence. Out of 31 million votes cast, there were 26 cases of voting as someone else at a polling station, 27 cases of postal vote fraud, and 11 proxy cases—we should not forget them.
That was the number of cases reported, of course, not the number found to have any substance. Police investigation revealed that in 45 cases, no offence had been committed; in 36 cases, there was insufficient evidence; and that 10 suspects were impossible to identify. A great edifice is being erected on the basis of 16 cases resolved by the police. Six cases resulted in police cautions. I am not sure whether any of those cases went to court, yet the hon. Gentleman proposes the considerable inconvenience of insisting that people carry documentation.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Northern Ireland. I was a Minister of State for Northern Ireland. He may have noticed that it has a slightly different and unique political history. There are, therefore, no grounds for imposing its arrangements on the rest of the UK. If he wants voters to show identification, he may want to ask those on the Government Front Bench why, when they came into government in 2010, they abandoned their support for identity cards. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland does issue electoral identity cards, but he did not say how much that would cost.
There is no evidential basis for this measure. It would involve a lot of extra work. It would also increase delays, with longer queues at polling stations as people have arguments about it or have to go back. We already have problems at many polling stations. It would prevent a number of voters, particularly elderly voters, from exercising their rights. It is a petty, politically partisan proposal that should be dumped in the bin.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Green, Sir Eric Pickles, Jason McCartney, Jim Shannon, William Wragg, Mr David Nuttall, Mary Robinson, Craig Tracey, John Stevenson, Martin Vickers, Maria Caulfield and Luke Hall present the Bill.
Chris Green accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2017, and to be printed (Bill 97).

EXITING THE EU AND TRANSPORT

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
That this House has considered exiting the EU and transport.
If I may crave the indulgence of the House briefly, I would like to say a couple of words about the situation on the railways in the south-west. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been considerable disruption as a result of storms, including line closures and very extensive delays. I can inform the House that following the flooding that closed the great western main line between Exeter and Tiverton, the line has now just reopened. The Barnstaple branch is due to reopen this afternoon. The Looe branch is still closed, but I hope it will reopen on Thursday. There was also disruption when the South West Trains route was closed. I am immensely grateful to all the staff at Network Rail. They sometimes get a hard time when things do not work, but they rally around when there are major incidents and deliver solutions quickly. I thank them all very much for their work.

Johnny Mercer: I thank the Secretary of State for speaking to the House about this matter because it is not good enough for the south-west to be cut off again, or to be the poor relation of the national rail network. The report by the Peninsula Rail Task Force that was presented yesterday must be the framework for a fair deal going forwards, so will he commit to doing everything in his power to deliver on this piece of work and to make sure that Network Rail delivers for my constituents?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely understand the importance of the task ahead of us. The report, which I have read carefully, shares my view that the No. 1 priority is the sea wall and the cliffs at Dawlish. My hon. Friend will also be aware that last Thursday I announced—this was also in today’s autumn statement—the provision of £10 million for the next stage of the project. I am committed, as is the Chancellor, to making sure that it happens. It is a strategically important project for our nation—we cannot have a situation where the south-west can be cut off via its principal railway routes—so I assure him that we will move ahead expeditiously with it.

Kevin Foster: I thank the Secretary of State for his comments and join him in thanking the Network Rail staff who turned the situation from that of two days ago, when there were literally hanging tracks, to one in which trains can run again. I am pleased that the Chancellor today described the £10 million of funding as the first step in this programme, and I thank the Secretary of State for his personal interest in this issue and his commitment to sorting out the issues with our rail infrastructure once and for all.

Chris Grayling: This absolutely needs to be done, and we will move ahead as quickly as we can. Following the incident on the Cowley bridge this week, flood protection works are due to start there imminently. It is a shame that the works have not quite started yet, but they will  be starting very shortly, and I hope that they will deal with that issue so that such an incident cannot happen again.
Moving to the main business, the autumn statement demonstrates the Government’s commitment to modern infrastructure that can serve the public and support a dynamic economy. Our forthcoming departure from the EU represents a huge opportunity for Britain to carve out a new role in the world and to be a stronger and more ambitious country—a country that is better able to shape its own future in the world and a country that is outward-looking and open for business. That was what I campaigned for in the summer, and it is what the Government will deliver.
Business is starting to share this optimism. Since the referendum, several companies in the transport sector have announced significant investment in the UK. Nissan’s commitment of investment is fantastic news for the British economy, the north-east and the car sector, particularly as it is not just maintaining capacity at the plant, but expanding it. In August, Bombardier received an order for 665 new vehicles from Greater Anglia, which will secure jobs and skills in Derby. When I spoke to the international head of Bombardier’s rail division about a month ago, he said that such was the quality of the work in the UK, Derby was going to become a global hub for its rail business, which is another positive statement of commitment to this country.
Alstom has started work on developing a new site at Widnes, which will create 600 jobs along with, crucially, a training academy. The Spanish firm CAF has said it will now set up a train manufacturing plant in the UK, and Siemens, which manufactures rolling stock and other products in the UK, has committed itself to a continuing presence. Its chief executive said in July, “We’re here to stay.” Alongside Hitachi’s new rolling stock and manufacturing and assembly plant in Newton Aycliffe, which is creating 730 new jobs, this shows that we are becoming a centre for high-quality rolling stock manufacturing, so it is with good reason that I view the future with optimism as we approach negotiations on leaving the EU.

Bill Cash: While, of course, I entirely endorse the Secretary of State’s sentiment, there is an issue regarding British ports. It is a big issue, but I will not go into it now, as I am hoping to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, there are some serious questions still outstanding around qualified majority voting, as I am sure the Secretary of State knows.

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He and I have discussed this matter in the past. The regulation coming out of the EU on ports is tailored to the particular structure of ports on the continent, but does not fit well with a private port sector such as ours. The opportunity to ensure that we have a regulatory framework that is right for the UK is one benefit that comes from leaving the EU.

Rob Flello: If between now and the great Act incorporating European legislation into UK law, as the first step towards unpicking things, the ports services directive comes into being—I am not sure how likely that is—would it not be incorporated straight into UK domestic legislation?

Chris Grayling: We have said very clearly that we will fulfil our legal duties while we are still members of the European Union, and that at the time of our leaving, it is our intention to transpose EU law into UK law. However, it is then for this Government and this House to decide what areas of regulation we want to keep and what areas we want to change. Having listened to the representations of Members about the ports directive, I suspect that this House will want to return to this area.

Andrew Turner: How has this regulation, which to everyone’s great pleasure disappeared back in January, now reappeared? Why was it so popular that the House did not need to scrutinise it? Will my right hon. Friend tell me what amendments have been made to the regulation that now make it acceptable?

Chris Grayling: The first thing to say is that no piece of European legislation passes through this House unscrutinised, particularly thanks to the assiduous work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). This is one area where the Government intend that the House has the opportunity of proper scrutiny. It is very much my hope and belief, as I have said, that our decision to leave the European Union will ensure that in respect of ports, for which our model does not conform with that of the rest of Europe, we will have the opportunity to tailor something that is right for this country.
I want to focus on two particular areas, which will be the priorities for my Department in the coming months. At the top of the list is aviation. Our aviation industry is world class, and our airports service the third largest aviation network in the world. UK airlines have seized opportunities globally, including those offered by the European open skies agreement. I am focused on securing the right arrangements for the future so that our airlines can continue to thrive and our passengers have opportunities, choice and attractive prices. When I met the aviation industry, I found that one of its priorities was and remains the effective regulation of safety and air traffic management. That is also a priority for me as we approach the negotiations.
Our connections with Europe are, of course, important, but we need to widen our horizons, too, and we need to make sure that we have continuity for the aviation industry internationally. Leaving the EU gives us more freedom to make our own aviation agreements with other countries beyond Europe, and ensuring that we have that continuity when we leave is an imperative for me and my Department.
I have already had positive discussions with my current US opposite number about the arrangements that we will need after Brexit for the vitally important transatlantic routes. There will, of course, be a new counterpart in office in America in the new year, and I intend to reprise those discussions when the new US Transportation Secretary is in post. Both sides have an interest in reaching an early agreement and I am confident that we will achieve that.
Looking the other way, last month we signed a deal with China that will more than double the number of flights that are able to operate between our two countries, thereby boosting trade and tourism. This country is open for business and open to the rest of the world, and  aviation has a big role to play in making that happen. Whether through new agreements or our support for a third runway at Heathrow, I will do whatever is necessary for our industry, businesses and the public. I shall have talks with other countries, such as Canada, where there is an interest in ensuring that we have good arrangements post-Brexit. There is a job to be done to make sure that that happens, but I am in absolutely no doubt that we will secure in good time and effectively the agreements that our aviation sector needs to continue to fly around the world and within the European Union. Not doing so is in no one’s interests. Many parts of the EU depend economically on the contribution made by British airlines flying to regional airports. It is in all our interests that that continues.

Stephen Gethins: Given that the Secretary of State campaigned for leave, will he tell us how much preparation regarding this issue the Government of which he was a member carried out before the referendum?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman mentions preparation, but the objective is very straightforward. It is in the interests of the different regions and countries of the European Union that we continue to trade and to have good transport links between us. I see no logical reason for anybody to stand in the way of that. We now have to work out what the best precise arrangements will be. When it comes to aviation, however, the objective is business as usual. That is what is in everyone’s interests.

Mark Hendrick: The Secretary of State refers to business as usual, but he will know that aviation emissions are now included in the EU emissions trading scheme. Is it his view that we should remain in a trading scheme once we leave the EU?

Chris Grayling: The world has moved on somewhat. The International Civil Aviation Organisation agreement that was reached in Montreal six weeks ago provides a global framework to tackle emissions in the aviation industry. All of us, both inside and outside the European Union, will be part of that as we ensure that the economies of the developed and the developing world can continue to benefit from improved aviation links while, at the same time, we meet our obligations to control carbon emissions.
The second area on which I am focusing is road haulage. We depend on road hauliers—without them, our shops would be empty and industry would grind to a halt. Our logistics industry does a first-class job in getting our goods to the right places, but the vast majority of lorries on the roads never leave the country. As we look to the future and to trade that does leave the country and crosses borders, there is one simple fact that we need to bear in mind. About 85% of the lorries operating between the United Kingdom and the continent belong to EU-owned businesses—international hauliers that are not based in this country.
The member states of the EU and the United Kingdom have a common interest in reaching an agreement. We need sensible arrangements for the future to allow goods to flow freely from and to the United Kingdom. We need to give UK hauliers a fair chance to win business and to be successful. We shall focus on that  during the negotiations, ensuring that we achieve the right outcome for the international hauliers that serve this country and for UK hauliers as well. I am talking to all those who are involved in running our roads and the freight services that use them.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will that include an aggressive look at freight charges for the movement of goods outside the United Kingdom to faraway markets? I understand that New Zealand, Australia and Canada have freight subsidies that allow them to cut the prices of freighted goods.

Chris Grayling: I am not necessarily a great fan of inappropriate subsidies, but I hope and believe that as we negotiate free trade agreements with countries around the world, we shall create an environment in which trade and freight haulage are conducted on a level playing field, and that there are no artificial barriers that push up our costs and help others to reduce theirs. Above all, however, we benefit from a world in which trade flows freely. That is clearly in the commercial interests of European hauliers, especially hauliers from the Irish Republic. I am very aware that as we enter the negotiations, we have a particular duty of care to our friends in the Republic. We have a duty to seek to reach an agreement that will ensure that their trade, which frequently involves travel by road through the United Kingdom to other parts of Europe, can flow smoothly. It is in all our interests to ensure that we have sensible cross-border arrangements.

Alan Brown: The Secretary of State mentioned discussions with haulage companies. Is he discussing with them the fact that they currently rely on EU drivers, courtesy of licence harmonisation, and the fact that, even so, it is forecast that there will be a shortage of 40,000 HGV drivers by 2020? Is he having discussions about what the Government can do to plug that skills gap?

Chris Grayling: Absolutely. The task is within the remit of the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). Not only is he the Minister responsible for our strategic road network but, as a former skills Minister, he holds the skills portfolio in my Department, and I know that he is very exercised about this issue. Of course, with a managed system of migration, we shall be able to recruit skills internationally when we need them, but I want a new generation of young drivers. There is much that we can do to make the profession more attractive, and my right hon. Friend is working on that at this very moment.
I have talked about the potential for a more tailored regulatory framework for the ports sector after we have left the European Union. We have a thriving and competitive ports sector, strong international investment, and some first-class facilities. I believe that the sector will be an essential part of a nation that is focused on global trade, trading opportunities, and opening up trade links with other countries.
Our railway services through the channel tunnel link us with the continent, but apart from that, Britain’s rail network is domestic. Although on day one after exit the rules will be the same as before, in future we shall be able to make our own decisions about changing those rules. We currently have a derogation from many of the  EU standards for our existing railways. That is because many of them date back to Victorian times and were built to entirely different standards. That is not the case for new railways, so one example of the kind of challenge that we are dealing with in the construction of HS2 is the fact that European specifications for platform heights are inconsistent with flat access for disabled people on to trains. We have to address that as part of the development of HS2, but it is an example of how, freed from European Union regulation, we can make sure that we do a better job, in this case for disabled people, which I believe that Members on both sides of the House will think is the right thing to do.
I talked about the global opportunity for Britain, and across the transport sector I am determined not only to negotiate the best deal for Britain within Europe, but to find new opportunities for our transport sector around the world. We should support our industries as they sell their expertise and products and seek to win major contracts around the world. We have world-class expertise in this country in the automotive sector, aerospace, logistics, transport engineering, rolling stock manufacture and much more. We need to be confident in offering these services to the world, and we have every reason to be confident: we are doing some great things in this country at the moment, from the first-class work being done to deliver Crossrail in London to the high-quality automotive technology that is developing the new generation of autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles.

Nick Smith: The Secretary of State talks about Crossrail. The infrastructure gap between London and the rest of the UK remains unbridged, so does he agree that the Cardiff-Swansea section of the great western railway electrification project must be delivered with UK Government funding as soon as possible?

Chris Grayling: As I said in the House the other day, I am not at all happy with the progress that has been made on the electrification of the great western main line so far. Actually, right now my priority is to get investment in better services into Swansea as soon as possible. The economy of Swansea and south Wales needs improved services and that is my focus. I do not want to wait for the future for infrastructure projects; I want better services now. As we re-let the Great Western franchise, I am determined to see improved services to south Wales that provide a real boost to the economy in the areas that the hon. Gentleman and other Members for south Wales represent. Better transport links and improved services to south Wales and to the south-west are essential to making sure that we have a productive economy.

Ben Howlett: One of the key hurdles facing a lot of railway companies is the European procurement rules. Has the Secretary of State had conversations with the Department for Exiting the European Union on the procurement opportunities that are available outside the EU?

Chris Grayling: Clearly, outside the EU, we have the opportunity to shape our own procurement rules. I do not want to be part of a Government who say that international firms are not welcome in the UK—that would be quite the wrong thing to do—but it is equally reasonable for us to say, for example, “If you’re coming  to do business with us by being involved in the construction of HS2, we want you to leave a skills footprint in this country. We want apprenticeships and technical skills, and we want the engineers of the future to be trained and developed, and to be working on these projects so that they can carry on beyond them to build us further projects for the future.” That is our intention.
Let me be clear: Brexit is an unprecedented opportunity.

Nick Smith: I am very unhappy that the Secretary of State avoided my question about supporting the Cardiff-Swansea electrification, so I would like a better answer on that in the future, please. I am owed a letter from his ministerial colleague the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). Having said that, the Secretary of State did say he wanted to support an economic boost for south Wales, so will the UK Government be supporting the Cardiff metro plans, which are important for getting Blaenau Gwent working again?

Chris Grayling: Not only are we supporting the Cardiff metro plans and looking at how to deliver better services to the whole of south Wales—it cannot be just about Cardiff; it has to be about what happens to the west—but I will also be looking at whether we can provide better services to connect with the west of Wales and better services to Swansea. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying it is not just about south Wales; it is also about how we deliver better services to north Wales. There is a tendency, particularly in the Administration in Cardiff, always to look to the south—there are important things happening there—but we as a Government have not forgotten that there are many different parts of Wales, and the commitment to the north is also very much in my in-tray.
Let me be clear that Brexit represents an unprecedented opportunity to shape our own future, and we will make the most of that opportunity. We will get out into the world and do business right across the globe, and at home we will continue to build a world-class transport system for this country.

Stephen Gethins: Will the Secretary of State tell us what meetings he has had with the European Transport Commissioner, given the importance that that relationship will have over the next little while? Will he also tell us what was discussed in those meetings?

Chris Grayling: I have already had one meeting with the Commissioner, when we were in Japan, and I will see her again next week at the Transport Council. We will work out the best way to take forward negotiations in due course, but we have had exploratory discussions. Those discussions have been constructive, and I look forward to having further such discussions with her.
I have to be mindful of the need to ensure that we have a structure for the future that will create stability and opportunity for our aviation and haulage sectors, and that takes advantage of the potential freedoms that leaving the European Union will offer this country’s transport sector. We fully intend to take advantage of that opportunity.

Andy McDonald: I echo the Secretary of State’s expression of his regard for the workers who have come to the aid of the south-west’s  rail system yet again. We have heard other hon. Members express their disappointment that we are still looking at issues of resilience in that area, and I know that they will want that matter to be resolved as quickly as possible.
The Government’s strategy for leaving the European Union—or rather, the lack of one—is causing great uncertainty throughout the transport sector. I do not know who the Secretary of State is speaking to about this, but we, and those in the aviation, rail, road and maritime sectors, are none the wiser about what the Government’s plans might be and what impact Brexit will have on the future of those sectors and all those who work in or depend on them.

Bill Cash: I have already referred to the question of the ports sector. Speaking as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I can tell the House that it has been well established over a long period that the Government, the Labour Opposition, the unions and every one of the 47 port employers are against ports regulation. What are Labour Members going to say about that during this debate? Are they going to oppose it?

Andy McDonald: If the hon. Gentleman can wait six or seven minutes, I will come to that very point.
Today’s debate offers a welcome opportunity for the Secretary of State to provide some much-needed clarity on his plans for transport in a post-Brexit UK. He was one of the leading advocates of Britain leaving the EU, and he now has the privilege of being the Transport Secretary, so if anyone can provide us with a clear picture of what to expect in the months and years ahead, presumably he can. One of the areas of transport most likely to be affected by the country’s decision to leave the EU is the aviation sector, which is a key pillar of our economy. Taken country by country, the UK’s aviation sector is the largest in Europe and the third largest in the world. It is worth about £50 billion in terms of our GDP, it supports 1 million jobs and it secures the Treasury some £9 billion in taxation each year.
While we accept the result of the referendum and are determined to secure the best possible deal for all the UK, we must not be an inward-looking nation that is cut off from the cultural and economic benefits that come with being an interconnected country. We must be ready to do business with the rest of the world. That means retaining and building on the connectivity that the UK currently enjoys in order to allow the flow of goods and services that will be key to getting the best out of Brexit.

Rob Flello: I, too, want Brexit to be a success and for us to get on with it and ensure that we get the best possible deal for our country. However, does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Department for Transport, which has seen massive cuts to its revenue budgets and day-to-day spend, just will not have the staffing in place to be able to deal with the huge number of issues? At the same time as we negotiate Brexit, we will be negotiating different agreements with other countries on matters such as aviation.

Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have seen the inability to see such things through and deliver them not only on this issue, but through the prism of the franchising system in the rail market. He raises a grave concern about something that we will be watching with great care in the weeks and months ahead.
Through its membership of the EU, the UK currently relies on the EU single aviation market, which allows airlines to operate freely inside the EU without restriction on capacity, frequency or pricing and enables the use of the EU’s external aviation agreements. Leaving the European economic area could mean that we are no longer part of the single aviation market and could lose access to those external air service agreements. That is critical, because unless the position is clarified urgently, UK airlines will lose the right to operate within the European Union and airlines will lose the right to fly UK domestic routes. The Government must ensure that Brexit does not damage the UK’s connectivity. The aviation sector has been clear about the importance of retaining an unchanged operating environment.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman and others have talked about getting the best out of Brexit as it arrives. Given the seven options for that process, does he imagine that any will be as good as the situation that we have at the moment? People are looking for the best decision, but the question is whether it will be as good as what we have.

Andy McDonald: The hon. Gentleman raises a critical point that is the whole focus of this debate. It is our concern in this House that we are simply not going to be able to deliver the same level of interoperability and accessibility that we currently enjoy throughout Europe. In the aviation sector, it is critical to achieve that before we even begin discussions about our trading relationship going forward.

Nick Smith: The National Audit Office says that, under this Conservative Government’s watch, Network Rail and the Government have wasted £330 million so far on the Great Western mainline electrification. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Department for Transport needs to pull its socks up to deliver on future infrastructure projects?

Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. That is the sort of wastage from this Department that we have seen in so many areas over the past several years. We have seen smart ticketing costs written off and the Great Western debacle. Everyone in this place is worried about its inability to function effectively.
Returning to aviation, it is vital that there be not only early assurances from Government, but confirmation that the status of current aviation practices will be guaranteed beyond our formal departure from the EU.

Rob Flello: My hon. Friend is being generous in taking interventions. I was slightly reassured by what the Secretary of State said a few moments ago about his planned meetings with the US Secretary of Transportation. My hon. Friend talked about access to the European network, but the danger on the US side is that we will fall back on the Bermuda II agreement, which was designed for a whole different world and certainly not  for the 21st century. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we have more to worry about than just European skies?

Andy McDonald: I do share those concerns. Although it is clearly imperative that conversations be had with those across the Atlantic, I was a little anxious to hear from the Secretary of State that that becomes the first port of call, rather than trying to resolve matters within the European Union.

Chris Grayling: I have also spent quite a lot of time with my German counterpart and with a number of other European Transport Ministers, and I will be doing that next week.

Andy McDonald: I am delighted to hear it.
Will the Secretary of State explain to the House his plans for the UK’s relationship with the European Aviation Safety Agency on leaving the EU? What is his intention? Will he seek to maintain technical co-operation through a bilateral aviation safety agreement approach, as is the case with the United States, Canada and Brazil, or through a working arrangement with the EU, as is currently enjoyed by China, New Zealand and Russia? I urge the Government to confirm that air service agreements will be negotiated separately from the UK’s negotiations on future trade with the EU, as well as specifying the nature of those agreements. I invite the Secretary of State to outline his plans for UK airlines to retain the right to operate within the EU and retain access to the EU’s external air service agreements.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point about retaining the work done on the Open Skies agreement, because if we look back on UK air policy before that time, as I have done, we see that it was about bilateral agreements that specified flying into London airports only. I believe Iceland broke that by getting into Glasgow, because the father of one of the negotiators wanted to go shopping for suits in Glasgow. That absolutely points out the problem we faced when the UK was managing this itself: it was centralised for the benefit of the south-east of the UK, to the detriment of others.

Andy McDonald: I do not know where you get your suits, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Neither in Iceland, nor in Glasgow. It appears we should always go to Glasgow. The issue the hon. Gentleman raises is particularly pertinent given the decision we have just had on the additional south-eastern runway, so he makes the point well.
Numerous rail projects in the UK receive support via loans or direct funding as a consequence of our membership of the EU, and now is not the time for the Department to row back on investments in our railways, as we have seen happen repeatedly in respect of electrification works, which hon. Members have spoken about so eloquently this afternoon. I invite the Secretary of State to reassure the House that any funding shortfalls will be made up by the Government and that investment in rail will not suffer as a consequence of Brexit.
The Secretary of State said during the EU referendum that he wanted to take back control. Labour Members very much wish to take back control of our railways  from private and foreign state-owned companies, which currently profit from the system at the expense of passengers and taxpayers. Ours is a policy supported by two thirds of the public, but, as the Secretary of State is aware, although running services in the public sector is currently entirely consistent with EU legislation, the fourth railway package may restrict the different models of public ownership that might be available. Does he agree—I believe he said so earlier—that it should be for UK voters to decide how best to order our railways? If so, will he confirm that his Government will not attempt to retain any European requirements in domestic law that would frustrate any future attempts to bring railways back into public ownership? I was delighted to hear what he had to say about HS2, and I suppose that if there is going to be a silver lining from the leaving the EU, it will be that we will not be able to blame “them” any longer for any problems we have with disabled people getting access to our railway system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) has not had an answer to his question, because he made it abundantly clear that he was talking about the infrastructure. The Secretary of State suggested he should be satisfied with improved services, but those will come only with improvements in the infrastructure.
The skills footprint, to which the Secretary of State referred with great regularity—of course we share some of his concerns—should be delivered whether or not we are in the European Union. That is not a consequence of any move. It should be an absolute prerequisite that is woven into everything we do.
Although we have decided as a nation to leave the European Union, co-operating with, and retaining our connectivity to, the EU is vital. We would greatly appreciate it if the Secretary of State enlightened us on what progress is being made to ensure that hauliers from the UK can carry goods between other member states and on whether it is his intention to secure an agreement for British driving licences to continue to be exchangeable with those of EU member states after Brexit.
Finally, let me mention UK ports, which directly employ more than 25,000 people, many of whom voted to leave because of anxiety surrounding EU ports services regulation. Many leave campaigners argued that leaving the EU would ensure full exemption from those regulations. However, the former shipping Minister, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), was reported as saying that the ports services regulation would still apply under an arrangement that granted the UK access to the European economic area. Can the Secretary of State clarify the Government’s intentions on any withdrawal from ports regulations and guarantee that any exemptions do not inadvertently undermine strong industrial relations and the welfare standards of dock and port workers?

Bill Cash: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may try to infer with regard to the European economic area, it is completely beside the point. The fact is that there is a regulation and, as he knows, it is on the brink of being brought in—I believe it is by the end of this month. All that talk that he has just given us has nothing to do with the issue. The real question is whether the Labour party is going to oppose it. Will it say that it condemns it, because that is what the unions, the Government and, as I understood it, the Labour party wanted?

Andy McDonald: I am not sure whether I could have been any clearer. I have just addressed the issue head on. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he might be a little clearer in his own mind.
My contribution has been full of questions, because so little has been revealed so far that would give any idea of what the Government are setting out to achieve after Brexit and of the mechanisms by which they aim to achieve any such objectives. Huge questions remain over the future of our flourishing aviation sector; over what existing EU legislation will be retained and what that will mean for our railways and ports; over whether EU funding for transport projects will be made up by the Government, and over issues to do with connectivity by road and what Brexit will mean for haulage.
I invite the Secretary of State to bring forward the details of his Department’s plans for Brexit, which have been, so far, so stark staringly absent.

Bill Cash: My main concern in relation to this debate is with regard to ports services regulation. It is a perfect example of where the European Union has gone completely wrong, and of why, in this particular sector, it is vital that we leave the European Union. I will give a number of reasons for that, which are drawn from those who have the most knowledge of these matters, including those who are referenced in the latest Library briefing.
As has been said by the Major Ports Group, many of the issues that confront UK ports are affected by policy and legislation from the European Commission and the European Parliament. The European Parliament is about to hold a plenary session and, for present purposes, it is assumed that the regulation will go through. It will then go to the Council of Ministers, which is governed by qualified majority voting.
The European Scrutiny Committee and I have been following this for several years, and I will come on to the timetable and my concerns about the failure to have a proper debate on the Floor of the House on this issue exclusively. The port employers say:
“While UK ports receive virtually no financial assistance from the public purse, the situation is very different in most continental ports.”
That is hugely important. We are an island. We have 47 ports. They are incredibly important, and I accept, of course, that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), has made clear his concern, but it does not alter the basic point: we cannot resolve the question of the port services regulation because of the qualified majority voting system. Even if we vote against it, we cannot stop it. That is the problem, and it is why I had to ask the hon. Gentleman twice about this. I will give a description in a few moments. I understand that that the Opposition have accepted the outcome of the referendum.

Drew Hendry: Not all of us.

Bill Cash: As the hon. Gentleman suggests, the Opposition in Scotland do not accept it, but there are reports in Scotland that many people there will be affected by the outcome of the regulation, so I shall continue. We are an island nation, but this is not just romantic blurb about this sceptred isle and the fact that  we are surrounded by a silver sea; this is about whether we in this country can have an efficient port sector. As we are an island, we are heavily dependent on the ports as goods go in and out of them.

Rob Flello: For the benefit of the wider House, may I say that over 90% of our trade goes through our ports?

Bill Cash: Indeed, and I know where the hon. Gentleman—my next-door neighbour—has got that figure from. It is from paragraph 6.2 of the Library note, which I can see he has been reading. I am glad that he has been so assiduous. The principle is that, despite the fact that we are an island, we compete with continental ports for certain types of traffic. Those in the ports industry are therefore concerned by a lack of a level playing field between the UK and continental ports.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman will have probably seen the report published on the front page of the Financial Times perhaps four, five or six weeks ago that the UK might have some difficulty carrying out customs checks at ports and other such points. At the moment, we carry out 35 million checks a year. We as the UK would need to carry out up to 240 million checks a year, but the new system has the capacity to handle about 100 million checks. If this situation emerges, it will cause a huge difficulty post-Brexit and inevitably damage trade, because the infrastructure is not there to do customs checks at ports.

Bill Cash: My response is quite simple: if we do not continue to have an efficient ports system because of the effect of the port services regulation, nothing that the hon. Gentleman says will make any difference to the fact that our ports will be put not only at a severe disadvantage, but in a dangerous situation vis-à-vis the other continental ports. However, despite the fact that there was an attempt to get state aid rules imported into the regulation, the ports employers believe that
“it is essential that legislation aimed at regulating less commercial ports on the continent does not cause unintended damage to the UK’s thriving commercial sector.”
On that basis, there is a matter of principle that affects our whole import and export business that goes through the ports.
The effect that the proposal will have is so obvious that I need not even attempt to explain it. It aims to regulate market access to port services, port charges and financial transparency. The ports employers say:
“The text as a whole”
—this is some time ago, but I will catch up in a moment with what they have said most recently—
“even if heavily amended, cannot deliver on its states aims. Instead, it will create severe legal uncertainty, reduce investment and will ultimately be detrimental to the safety standards and working conditions which currently exist in EU ports. EU ports may have different ownership structures, but all require a high level of confidence in a stable legal and policy framework in the long term if they are to operate safely”,
which is for the benefit of the workers,
“and contribute to the EU agenda for jobs and growth”,
which is vital to everyone, whether they are employers or workers in the ports.
The UKMPG goes on to say:
“The Port Services Regulation proposal does not provide such confidence and risks leaving a legacy of legal and practical difficulties across the EU.”
The UKMPG
“supports a return to the previous EU ports policy approach based round application of the general provisions of the Treaty reinforced, where appropriate, by guidelines on state aids.”
We now have Brexit so, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) suggested in relation to the great repeal Bill, are we going to reach a point, as I think we must, where we transpose the legislation into UK law but then, through statutory instruments and our own decision within the framework of this Westminster jurisdiction, as a result of the decisions taken by the people of this country, including Government Members and Opposition Members—with the exception, I suspect, of SNP Members, but they will pay a price for this in their ports areas—[Interruption.] They may find this amusing, but there are people in the ports of Scotland who do not like the proposal and will resist it if they can. They will not be allowed to do so if the SNP can get away with it.
The bottom line is that this is an issue of great national interest. The European Scrutiny Committee has been following the matter for several years. We first recommended it for debate on the Floor of the House in July 2014—over two years ago. On 19 October, I wrote to the Minister:
“We understand that it is intended that the European Parliament will adopt this text for a First Reading Agreement at its 12-15 December plenary and we presume that this will be followed shortly by Council agreement.
You will understand, therefore, that the Committee expects that the Government will finally, after a disgracefully long delay”—
which I underlined several times—
“schedule the floor debate on the proposal which it and its predecessor have recommended.”
In fact, there have been two debates, which have been aborted. One of them, I can assure the House, was so shambolic that the Chairman of the Committee had to suspend the sitting. I will not go into the details of that—they are all on the record.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have been involved in the European Scrutiny Committee for several years. I did not intend to intervene, but I am concerned about this issue. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we will take into British law what now exists as EU law, but we will selectively disapply parts of the EU legislation that do not suit Britain, and this might be one of those.

Bill Cash: That is absolutely right. It is essential that we disapply this, for that reason. The mechanics of it will be left to statutory instruments, but we must reassert our jurisdiction over our ports.
As recently as 17 November, I wrote again to the Minister, saying:
“The Committee has asked me to emphasise to you and the Leader of the House that this debate should take place before the European Parliament adopts the text for a First Reading Agreement and the Council’s subsequent endorsement of this text.
Failure to meet this timetable would suggest contempt for the House and its legitimate scrutiny requirements.”
Although the issue has been going on since July 2014, we still have not had that debate. There is just time for us to have such a debate. Although this is a general debate about exiting the EU, a specific debate is not only recommended but, in effect, demanded by the European Scrutiny Committee, backed by the sort of language that I have had to use, demonstrating the importance of the issue and the need to get on with it. The other point that I must make is this: I have had no reply to those letters. At its meeting today, I am afraid that the European Scrutiny Committee registered its deep concern about the situation.
I received my latest statement from the ports industry this afternoon. I want to read it out, because it is important that the House should know the latest position:
“One further point…is that the UK Government has insisted on pursuing the inclusion in the PSR of a ‘Competitive Market exemption’ rather than the option of having an exemption for the privately financed ports on the face of the Regulation itself”,
which is what the industry has been seeking.
“It is this Competitive Market Exemption provision that was finally agreed in the informal trilogue discussions between the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission earlier this year and which is now in the final draft version of the PSR due to come before the European Parliament in December. However, this ‘Competitive Market Exemption’ is not an exemption—it is a process by which Member States may apply to the European Commission for an exemption”,
as if they could expect to get it.
“Any application would be determined solely by the European Commission, may be limited in scope or time, and would relate only to certain Articles of the Regulation. In short, it offers no guarantees that the PSR would not be fully binding on UK ports.”
Mr Cooper, the spokesman at last week’s annual parliamentary reception of the United Kingdom Major Ports Group, who is also CEO of one of the largest port companies, also had this to say:
“I will not rehearse the arguments against this wretched piece of wholly unnecessary legislation, but, as the endgame approaches, it remains a totemic example of a Regulation imposed by Brussels which is a one-size-fits-all straitjacket that runs entirely counter to our national interest. In its present form the Regulation is significantly less damaging than it might have been—and, alongside the DfT, the port industry can claim considerable credit for that—but it is not a success that can be guaranteed over the long term. Many of the changes to reduce the scope and impact of the Regulation have been a function of short-term political expediency.”
The problem is this. It is inherent in the procedures of the European Union—in the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the European Commission—that we are in this situation. We cannot stop it without leaving the European Union. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South says, the timetable in relation to the great repeal Bill is significant. However, this is a very good example. What is for sure is that if we repeal the legislation and follow Brexit to its logical conclusion—this applies to many other areas as well—the United Kingdom will be enabled to regain control: in this case, over its island ports and the business that goes in and out of them. It will do that under the Westminster jurisdiction, on the basis of a new ports Bill, after Brexit and after the great repeal Bill has gone through, for the benefit of people who work in the ports in an executive capacity as well as those working in the docks themselves—the workers, who deserve to be given a fair deal. The Government and the Opposition, recognising this, must appreciate that we need a proper debate about the issue. It is so important that we get this right for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Drew Hendry: We have heard from the Secretary of State for Transport that we should have confidence; he has reassured us that we should have optimism, but, of course, we have heard no details.
The impact of Brexit on the different modes of transport—aviation, maritime and road haulage—will be immense, but its main effect will be on all the people in our communities, with rising costs for goods and mobility. There are also those who want to do business with us or to visit us as tourists. It is wrong for Ministers not to have a full explanation of how exiting the EU will impact on businesses, consumers and passengers.
Nobody doubts that we are facing stormy seas, yet instead of a plan, we are told by the Foreign Secretary that Brexit will be titanic. That is scary enough, but time after time, in terms of plans and answers, we find it is just an empty vessel. The Government’s model is less a ship of state and more like the Mary Celeste. So let us see the Brexit rhetoric cast overboard, and let us hear some definitive answers.
People will be affected; they and our businesses deserve to know what the plan is. This failure to provide a plan is simply a plan for failure. People face additional journeys for connections, more expensive tickets, fewer rights to challenge delays and cancellations, additional insurance costs and long queues at border controls. When they call home, their calls could cost more because they will not have mobile phone roaming protection.
The Chancellor said today that he wanted the UK to be the No. 1 destination for business. Well, how are people going to get here? Let us start with aviation. Leaving the EU could restrict operations by UK airlines in Europe, and by EU airlines in the UK, leaving our constituents and visitors to the UK paying the price for Brexit through higher fares. Analysis from the independent Oxera economists states that such restrictions could lead to UK passengers’ airfares rising by 15% to 30%.
As an MP from the highlands, and as chair of the regional airports all-party parliamentary group, I am also extremely concerned about the increased cost pressure on regional airports. These airports have thrived with the increase in low-cost airlines, and the advent of cheap short-haul flights across Europe owes a large part of its success to the EU. As easyJet said:
“the single aviation area gives airlines freedom to fly across Europe and since its introduction passengers have seen fares fall by around 40 per cent”.
Without that agreement, fares will inevitably be higher.

Chris Grayling: Earlier this week, I met the proprietor of AirAsia, who has built an extraordinarily successful low-cost airline across south-east Asia. Countries there are not in a European Union-type institution. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me and to the House why it is not possible to have a low-cost aviation set-up in Europe with us outside the European Union, but it is possible to have such a set-up in a part of the world where there is no such body as the European Union?

Drew Hendry: Let me answer that by giving the right hon. Gentleman the words of easyJet itself. EasyJet is currently registered in the UK and can fly largely without restriction from the UK to other member states—France  and Germany, for example—and wholly, in terms of the domestic market, within countries such as Italy. EasyJet is now setting up a separate operation outwith the UK to ensure that it can continue to fly without restrictions after the UK leaves the EU. As its chief executive officer, Carolyn McCall, said, current EU flying rights might have to be renegotiated, and the new company will ensure easyJet can operate within the EU. She added:
“We are not saying there will be no agreement. We just don’t know the shape or form. We don’t have the luxury of waiting. But we have to take control of our own future.”
That is in no small part due to the lack of clarity from the UK Government over what aviation agreement the UK will eventually come up with. The Secretary of State and his colleague the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have said:
“Market access remains a top priority, and we want to make sure we have liberal access to European aviation markets.”
Strikingly, however, there was no guarantee that the UK would stay within the open skies agreement. The UK Government need to explain to us now how this is going to work. When open skies was agreed back in 2008, the UK market was one of the key attractions for the United States. At the time, the UK accounted for a 40% share of the EU-US market. If the agreement ceases to apply, as was mentioned earlier, will the UK have to revert to the Bermuda II bilateral agreement, signed in 1946 and last amended in 1991?

Angus MacNeil: Perhaps there is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us whether we will be in the open skies agreement post-Brexit.

Drew Hendry: I am happy to allow the Secretary of State to intervene on that point if he wishes to do so, but obviously he does not.
The aviation market has changed considerably since the days of the Bermuda II agreement, and any reversion could cause disruption to UK airlines and transatlantic trade and passenger routes. If this is not the case, then what is the plan?
The implication of new border controls is negative in both ways. Ease of travel within the EU is attractive to our constituents and to those visiting the UK. Undoubtedly, passport checks and processing times for visitors from the EU will impact on our attractiveness to visitors. The fact that EU visitors will need to enter the UK through the non-EEA lines will require Border Force to commit significantly more resources at airports. Even with extra staff, queuing times for European visitors will still almost double to about 45 minutes. Those of us representing constituencies with a significant tourism economy find this extremely concerning.

Stewart McDonald: Staying slightly on that topic, will my hon. Friend urge the Transport Secretary to engage with the US Government, who are currently considering Edinburgh airport for pre-clearance travel to the United States, as a positive way of showing the world that we are indeed open for business?

Drew Hendry: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he has made his point and I will not follow it up any further.
One can imagine, under the future provisions, being a tourist from Europe, especially in the short break market, with the choice of going to the UK or somewhere else where there is a lot less hassle—somewhere more welcoming. Additional space will need to be allocated to immigration control operations in airports and other ports of entry. It is thought that the costs could spiral into tens of millions of pounds. This cost would have to be borne by airports and port operators, who then cannot invest that money in increased connectivity and improving the passenger experience. According to the Tourism Industry Council, if the 23 million EU nationals who visited in 2015 were to be subject to full border checks, Border Force would be required to increase resources allocated to this by 200%—on top of the problems that already exist. Manchester Airports Group says:
“Border Force provision at a number of airports is already inadequate, with a lack of long term planning meaning queue times for passengers can already be unacceptably long.”
So what is the plan?

Ian Paisley Jnr: Before the hon. Gentleman gets into the detail of the hypotheticals of border controls, does he accept that the single largest threat to ordinary travellers in the United Kingdom, and across the entirety of Europe, is none of the things he has mentioned but the package travel directive about to be introduced by the EU, which will put additional costs on every single traveller because they perhaps use sites like Expedia?

Drew Hendry: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. So many issues are facing us that is very difficult to pick out the single most important item. There are a lot of unanswered questions.
Is the plan to reach an agreement with the EU that the EEA channel will continue to operate in the UK, and that EU member states will allow UK citizens to use the EEA channel in the EU?
Regional airports are vital for connectivity within Scotland, but the reckless gamble with our EU membership has caused great uncertainty for these airports that could have a seriously detrimental impact on our economy. Scotland has a large number of regional airports, many of which are reliant on low-cost airlines and outbound tourism to survive and to be an economic success. The International Air Transport Association predicts that a 12% reduction in sterling would result in a 5% decline in outbound travel, while Ryanair has said that it is scaling back its expansion in the UK.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is it not the case that since 23 June, there has been a significant depreciation of sterling and a surge of people coming into Britain to buy things, because everything is cheaper here? Is that not good for businesses in Britain, including those in Scotland?

Drew Hendry: I am happy to answer that. When I was a retailer many years ago, the UK Government introduced an increase in VAT. Before that VAT increase hit, there was a rush to the shops to buy goods. After that increase hit, things fell through the floor, and I think we will see a similar effect.
Scotland has a large number of regional airports, many of which are reliant on low-cost airlines and outbound tourism to survive and to be an economic success. As I have said, the International Air Transport Association predicts a reduction in outbound travel.  Since the EU referendum, sterling is down 25%. For airports such as Prestwick, it is even more vital that we continue the open skies agreement to maintain the number of outbound passengers, so it is incumbent on the UK Government to give an unequivocal guarantee that the UK will stay in the single aviation market after we are taken out of the EU. With 76% of UK holidays abroad being taken in the EU, outbound tourism is key for the industry. Outbound tourism employs more than 215,000 people across the UK, and it is a key driver in ensuring that our regional airports are successful. Remaining in the open skies single aviation market is vital to ensure that our airports remain economically viable, and low-cost airlines are vital if regional airports are to be a commercial success.

Callum McCaig: My hon. Friend has talked about airports relying on bringing in tourists. Aberdeen airport is heavily reliant on business traffic, but with the difficulties that the oil and gas industry has faced, the airport has redirected its efforts towards sun destinations in the likes of Spain and towards eastern Europe. What kind of message does the lack of clarity about the plans send to an airport that is looking to diversify its offering?

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and he underlines the theme that I am working on just now. This uncertainty is bad not only for business, but for consumers, passengers and everybody involved.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman talked about exchange rates. I think that relative to the euro, sterling depreciated by far less than 25%. That is crucial, because that is where we have our serious trade imbalance. With the rest of the world, we have relatively good relations. The strength of the dollar has compounded the depreciation of sterling, but that depreciation will be beneficial to British industry, wherever we trade.

Drew Hendry: That is the kind of thing that somebody might want to put on the side of a bus. It has been a trait of previous UK Governments to take forever to make key transport decisions, but UK regional airports, including those in Scotland, do not have the luxury of waiting. For the sake of those airports, our businesses and our commuters, the UK Government need to provide a clear and unequivocal guarantee that any post-Brexit aviation agreement will not lead to a loss of investment and connectivity in Scotland if we end up outside the open skies agreement.
The current aviation policy framework sets out that airports cannot apply for a public service obligation or the connectivity fund because of the 60-minute rule, which means that a number of regional airports lose out. The Government’s EU gamble is putting potential investment in Scotland’s regional airports at risk. They need to think again and, in doing so, give regional airports a fighting economic chance.
The problems are not confined to aviation. Our maritime sector faces similar concerns. We have heard a fair bit about ports, but the maritime sector is worth €12 billion annually to the UK economy, and some 240,000 people are employed in the sector in the UK. Fifty-three per cent. of the UK’s imports and 45% of its exports are from the rest of the EU. It is estimated that approximately 3 million jobs in the UK are linked to trade with the rest of the EU. Currently, there is the freedom to trade.  OECD rules could preclude any change, in so far as we are talking about the ability of a ship to call at an EU or UK port and to load and unload cargo and passengers, regardless of its flag and regardless of the nationality of its owner. UK-flagged ships could, however, lose their right to operate in the domestic trades of EU member states that maintain flag-based cabotage restrictions.
The British International Freight Association has said that its main concern is potentially losing the benefits of free trade and customs harmonisation with the EU single market:
“A return to tariffs for UK merchandise exports and imports, if this is the outcome...will be detrimental to UK trade with the EU, and may result in a…reduction in UK-EU maritime volume.”
As we have heard, the UK’s port sector is largely privately owned and run in a competitive environment, and is thus very different from those of many other EU member states. Oxera has also said that changes to the costs of trade with the EU are
“likely to affect the volumes and patterns of freight activity at ports, while the need for new customs checks on imports and exports is likely to cause considerable congestion at UK and mainland European ports.”
It suggests that any negative impact could be mitigated through EEA membership or free trade agreements, although delays in negotiations could mean a significant period trading under World Trade Organisation arrangements. Uncertainty will impact the industry and the people it employs, and drive up the price of goods, so what access arrangements will be in place?

Bill Cash: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he will have heard what I said earlier. What is his answer to that with respect to the question he has raised about Scotland? Are Scotland’s ports not equally affected?

Drew Hendry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that; I think we are making a very similar point from very different perspectives. There needs to be a plan for how ports are handled, going forward. The difference in the regulation and operation of UK ports as compared with EU ports provides a significant obstacle. The UK Government have to give us an answer on what they are going to do and how they are going to take forward a plan on that basis.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Drew Hendry: No, I will make some progress.
What access arrangements will be in place? What is the plan for the millions of people connected with this industry? Will UK companies have access to a single European market, with no taxes or duties payable on goods?
There are a lot of potential uncertainties for UK road haulage companies as a result of Brexit, particularly in terms of employment, drivers’ hours rules, access to markets and border controls. Transporting a lorry load of goods from London to Milan in 1988 required 88 separate documents; the internal market replaced them all with a single piece of paper. In response to the balance of competences review, the Freight Transport Association said that the EU had created
“a market that logistics has served for nearly half a century”,
benefiting British businesses; the Road Haulage Association, similarly, felt that for its sector the overall judgment was a fine one. It said that
“‘competences in UK road transport are finely balanced in our sector. Although we have not got a 100% solution in terms of market access we have got the most of what we think the industry would want”.
That is largely a reference to cabotage, the practice whereby a haulier from the UK can carry goods between two other member states—for example, Spain and France. So, what is the plan?

Chris Grayling: rose—

Drew Hendry: I am happy to give way to hear the plan.

Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, first, what proportion of cross-channel traffic is carried by UK hauliers as opposed to hauliers based elsewhere in the EU, and, secondly, the balance of cabotage carried out in the United Kingdom by European hauliers, and vice versa?

Drew Hendry: The Secretary of State is trying to make an argument similar to that made during the Brexit campaign about how the EU has to buy cars made here because there is a bigger market for them. That does not square with the facts of what is happening in the European market. For example, what will happen when there is a shortage of drivers in the road haulage industry, as at the moment many of them are EU nationals, supplying our road transport network? We have not heard the plan, and I heard nothing in the Secretary of State’s remarks today to say that there was a plan in this regard.
The EU single market has delivered significant economic and social benefits for Scotland. The four freedoms of the single market—freedom of movement of capital, of people, of goods and of services—have removed barriers to trade and opened Scotland to a market of more than 500 million people. The single market has also generated direct benefit, and there are now unanswered questions about funding. As of October 2016, some £350 million had been legally committed for transport funding, meaning a further £450 million is available as long as it is committed before the UK leaves the EU. Some £13 million of that went directly to Transport Scotland, with the agency being available to seek a further amount from the remaining £450 million. However, there has been not a peep from the UK Government or the Chancellor on whether the funds will be committed up to 2020. Will the UK Government seek to top up the funding to Scotland after we leave the EU?
I will conclude now, but there are many further issues relating to rail and bus networks, including vehicle standards and testing, disabled badges and a whole lot more. There are so many questions on transport in the light of Brexit that I think we will return to the subject again and again. Those questions are being asked not just by me or my hon. Friends, but by industry and the public. They deserve answers. They deserve “the plan”, but instead they see that, on issues relating to maritime, road or air, they have a UK Government who are all at sea, taking the road to nowhere, and booked on an expensive and uncomfortable flight from reality.

Ben Howlett: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I am not sure if this is entirely parliamentary but, as I am following my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), we have had Bill and now we have Ben. I am not exactly sure, however, that we are in the same flowerpot right now.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the effect of leaving the European Union on our transport sector. Like many colleagues, I would have preferred to have had a debate on the effect of exiting the EU on the single market or the free movement of labour. Nevertheless, this is still an important issue for a number of residents in my constituency and in the United Kingdom as a whole. I note the irony that the House of Commons Library briefing paper on this subject suggests that
“transport post-Brexit may not look wildly different to how it looks now”.
However, given that much remains unclear as we head towards the negotiations, I would like to outline a number of priorities the Government should consider.
The European Union’s common transport policy is focused on a number of policy areas, most notably economic and social matters, environmental improvements and infrastructure investment. There has been a long-running debate on whether the benefits of European Union membership and access to a single market for transport services outweigh the relative burdens of regulation. It is my belief that the development of the common transport policy has benefited the United Kingdom by improving the health of our population and boosting economic growth, while ensuring we have the long-term infrastructure to compete in a global environment. We need to ensure that the UK continues to feel these benefits once we have left the European Union.
I would like to take this opportunity to change tack somewhat from the long conversations we have had about ports and to focus on two key areas: environmental improvements and infrastructure investment. I sympathise with the Government’s position that while Brexit negotiations are ongoing it is important not to make guarantees but, like many sectors, transport is an area that needs certainty. I am sure that we all agree about that.
First, I would like to concentrate on the environmental impact. Bath has a huge problem with air pollution. As colleagues will know, Bath is full of buildings constructed out of the famous Bath stone, which absorbs vehicle emissions. Sadly, high air pollution levels across the city mean many buildings are slowly blackening—hon. Members will be pleased to know that my home has been rendered, so it is not blackening at the moment. In some parts of Bath, air pollution levels far exceed the legal limit and cause problems to my constituents’ health and wellbeing. Of course, this is not a problem for just my constituency; it affects many constituencies of Members here today.
Ensuring that the transport system works in a way that does not have a negative impact on the environment—reducing the impact of noise, pollution, harmful emissions and greenhouse gases—is vital to the long-term health of our population. The transport sector accounts for  almost a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union, making it the sector with the second highest level of greenhouse gas emissions, just behind the energy sector. Moreover, transport is the only sector in the EU whose emissions have risen since 1990—by a staggering 22% in total. The Transport Committee has been doing some work on this issue over a number of years.
Alongside our EU colleagues, we have committed to reducing emissions in our transport sector and meeting European emissions standards. It was the UK that pushed hardest on this very issue, so it would be a shame if Britain were to draw back now. It is crucial that such work continues after Brexit. This issue is not isolated in the UK—we share our air with the EU and the rest of the world—yet many are concerned that we will lose the collaborative approach that is critical to solving these pan-national problems when we leave the EU.
I recently visited the low-emissions vehicle research centre at the university in my constituency. Incidentally, it has benefitted from £3.6 million of research funding and contracts from EU government bodies.

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Gentleman mentions his university, and I am extremely concerned about research funding after 2020. Will he join SNP Members in asking the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary to give greater certainty to the university sector about the post-2020 world?

Ben Howlett: Several of us raised that matter during our consideration in Committee of the Higher Education and Research Bill. The announcement that the last few years’ funding will continue after we leave the EU is, of course, welcome, but the university sector is very concerned, for example, about our leaving Horizon 2020, which we have been part of for many years. That would leave a huge hole in higher education funding and it is something that I hope the universities Minister will consider during the Bill’s passage through the other House.
Bath University’s prize-winning research centres are having a hugely positive impact on the measurement and understanding of air quality in not just the UK, but the EU. The Institute for Advanced Automotive Propulsion Systems, which is run and spearheaded by my university, will, I hope, receive some of the funding that the Chancellor announced earlier via the expansion of the local growth fund. This subject is obviously quite topical, given the recent Volkswagen scandal. Britain might end up with an opportunity to bring businesses such as BMW over to the UK to measure its air pollution levels, as Ford and other major international motor vehicle companies have been doing. It is important that, as we set out our position on exiting the EU, we remain committed to meeting our obligations on European emissions standards across the transport sector so that we improve the lives, and the health and wellbeing, of all our residents. I am sure the Government have that at the forefront of their mind as they consider transport policy after we leave the EU.
My second point relates to infrastructure investment. I would like to focus on the importance of maintaining adequate investment in our transport system and particularly in road, rail and aviation, many of which have already been mentioned. I welcome the Government’s  commitment to completing the incredibly important HS2 project and their recent announcement on Heathrow airport expansion. Both are vital to the long-term development of our country. In 2014, the European Investment Bank provided lending of more than £6 billion to support long-term investment for a broad range of infrastructure projects across the UK, some 26% of which were in transport and the telecommunications sector, so it is an important funding source for such projects. While we have been instrumental in the creation of the trans-European transport policy and the fourth railway package, which aims to remove the remaining barriers to the creation of a single European rail area, I hope that conversations will take place as we leave the EU to ensure that Britain still has adequate train links with the EU. By removing bottlenecks, building cross-border connections and promoting integration and inter-operability between different modes of transport, we can ensure that the UK benefits from an infrastructure plan that promotes economic growth and job creation.

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Gentleman talks about business growth. Does he agree that, just as transport improvements benefit business, so too does continued membership of the single market? Does he support our continued membership?

Ben Howlett: I have said on many occasions that I support membership of the single market. How achievable that is will ultimately be for the Government to negotiate with the EU but, fundamentally, businesses—not just in my constituency, but in the devolved nations—would suffer from a reduction in access to the single market. It is the same with the customs union. One thing missing from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was a consideration of possible cost implications and of how ports might lose out if we leave the customs union.
Now is not the time to slow down any investment in our transport sector, as we heard today from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With finance still needed for projects in my constituency such as the A36/46 link road and the completion of the electrification of the great western main line, the Government must commit to continuing any lost investment that currently flows from our membership of the European Union.
I hope that today’s debate will give the Government an opportunity to increase transport investment across the south-west as a whole. While there was welcome news in the autumn statement, there is a real opportunity over the next few years to address the imbalance. It was disappointing that a recent Institute for Public Policy Research report concluded that the south-west had the second lowest transport investment per capita and per commuter of anywhere in England. Without wishing to give too much credibility to counter-factual history, I question whether greater investment by the EU in transport infrastructure in the south-west would have led to more residents voting to remain part of the EU.
Transport is one of the EU’s most strategic common policies, and on many occasions we have been the driver for change in this area. Following our exit from the European Union, I hope that the Government will continue to invest heavily in the transport sector while maintaining our commitments to air quality and the environment.

Louise Ellman: This is a welcome and timely debate. Transport is vital to all that we do, whether it be the functioning of our economy or people engaging in a good life. It matters to everything we do, but there has been little discussion in public or in Parliament about the implications for transport of our exit from the European Union. In this short debate, I want to flag up a number of issues where there are concerns, some of which have gone unanswered. I shall also seek some further information from the Minister about how these issues are being addressed.
At the beginning of the debate, the Secretary of State made some fairly anecdotal remarks about how he was dealing with some of the issues of concern that have been raised. He referred to meetings that he has had with Ministers at conferences and said that he hoped to meet the President-elect of the USA shortly to discuss some of these issues with him. However, there is a more basic question.
Yes, there are big questions about how the negotiations might be conducted and what the Government’s objectives might be, but one key question is whether the negotiations on transport will be conducted in their own right or only as part of much wider negotiations, so that nothing agreed for transport will be finalised until there is agreement on all the issues involved in our leaving the EU. I have not heard that question properly discussed, but it is an issue of concern. Some transport issues might appear to be negotiated, but they could somehow be lost or given away as part of some bigger negotiation where other factors are under discussion. That is a fundamental issue and I would like to hear more answers from the Government about that. Providing an answer to that question is not really giving away a negotiating position; it is telling us how seriously the Government as a whole view transport issues. It might provide a guide on how far we should pursue some of the matters that have been raised today and that are likely to be raised again.
Members have talked about how different sectors of transport—road, rail, air and sea—might be affected. I shall come on to some of those later. There are also important cross-cutting matters to which very little attention has been given when it comes to Brexit. What of passengers’ rights, for example? Complex compensation packages are being negotiated in Europe, and I believe that one of them was either finalised recently or is nearing completion. It is not at all clear how that would affect British citizens. Would they be covered by those compensation packages, now or in the future? We simply do not know.
What about security matters? Reference has been made to cross-channel transport, of which security is an important aspect. How will that be affected? We have heard little about it. Environmental issues are very broad, but they certainly include transport. How will that affect us?
During the Transport Committee’s recent investigation of the Volkswagen scandal, attention was focused on vehicle type approval, the European system for assessing vehicles in terms of their environmental impact, performance and safety. Although the Volkswagen episode—the Volkswagen scandal—I must keep using that word, because a scandal is what it was—did highlight  some deficiencies in the system, it is important to recognise the importance of having a cross-European system for vehicle type approval. There might be a need to strengthen or change it in certain ways, but having it does matter. How would we be affected in that regard? Would the United Kingdom still be involved? Would we still be party to the system? Would we be partners in it, influencing what happened? Again, we simply do not know.
The question of accessibility to transport for disabled people has been raised briefly, in relation to the blue badge scheme. That scheme, which is very effective and very important here, has a European counterpart. What would happen to that? Has any thought been given to the issue, and has there been any discussion about it? There is a wider question. European directives call for proper access to buses, coaches and trains for disabled people to be implemented by 2020, and European legislation has driven improvements in their access to public transport. Will we still be involved in that, or will the United Kingdom decide that there is some get-out clause so that we do not have to continue to give proper attention to the matter? I hear little about that in the public arena.
Sometimes we are all so involved in talking about the major strategic issues—which are, of course, extremely important—that we forget about the practical issues, but they must not be lost. One way of ensuring that they are not lost in discussions about many other issues is to keep raising them in the House and, indeed, elsewhere.
A number of Members have drawn attention to the aviation sector, which in itself illustrates the importance of the possible impact on that sector by our exit from the European Union, and the importance of the sector itself. Aviation is vital to the economy as a whole, and to business and tourism specifically. In 2015, UK aviation transported 251 million passengers and contributed £1 billion a week to the UK economy, and it supports 1 million jobs. It is not just about transport, either. It is about skills, development, and a wide range of employment. It is literally a gateway to Europe and to the world. The UK currently has agreements to fly with 155 countries, 42 of which have air services agreements through our membership of the EU. That arrangement is critical. What will happen to it?
There are three broad areas of concern relating to aviation which require proper negotiation and a proper solution, rather than the uncertainty that currently hovers over the whole issue, causing great concern in the aviation sector and among the people employed in it. First, the single European aviation market allows EU registered airlines to have a base in another EU state and operate services between other member states and within them. It promotes growth and has reduced fares. It is critical. There may be an answer to what will happen to that as an alternative to our current arrangements. Are we going to consider joining the European common aviation area—we would be able to do that—or is the answer bilateral agreements? We simply do not know, and not knowing causes great uncertainty. It will affect business decisions being made by airlines now about where they want to locate. These are critical decisions about aviation and the people employed in the sector.

Drew Hendry: On business indecision, does the hon. Lady agree that businesses are openly saying that they are having difficulty now with their business plans and  are absolutely terrified of getting no forward vision from the UK Government about how things are going to work in the future, which is impacting directly on investment?

Louise Ellman: I do agree. That is a key area of discussion within the aviation sector. It is why it is so critical that this is addressed. There is great uncertainty. There might be a solution, but we need to move further on it.
The second area of concern within the aviation sector is the transatlantic aviation agreement, and particularly the EU-US open skies policy agreed in 2007. There are many aspects to that, including that EU airlines can operate to the US from any point in the EU. EU airlines can also lease aircraft to US airlines for use on international routes from the United States to any third country. That was opposed for a long time by the US authorities, but it is now agreed and it is extremely important not just for aviation itself but for this country and—I go back to the common theme of my speech—for employment in the sector and the retention of high-level skills. Will this agreement continue? The general view appears to be that it will, as it is too valuable and important to everyone for it not to continue, but again there is uncertainty. Is that being addressed?
The third aspect of concern is European airspace strategy. The use of airspace is critical and too often when we talk about aviation and runway capacity we do not think properly about airspace strategy. That matters, however; it matters in terms of efficiency and the environment. Capacity and efficiency have been added through having the single European sky. Will that continue in its current form? Will it be part of the negotiating process? Will the functional air blocks—UK and Ireland—be retained? How will this operate? It seems to be so critical that it has to carry on, but in what form, and how will the UK be involved?
I wanted to flag up those three areas of concern. They are well known—I am not saying they are being ignored—but my plea is that we need to know what progress is being made.
I also want to talk about ports. They are vital because 90% of the UK’s trade goes by sea, and the EU is the UK’s largest single trading partner. Yes, there are global markets and the maritime sector is global as well as European, but Europe is extremely important to it. It cannot be looked at in isolation. Access to the single European market is important to the maritime sector. What impact will discussions on that have on discussions about the ports and the maritime sector? How will changes in access to the single market affect shipping with Europe? Will there be new and complex tariffs? Will there be customs checks? How will transmodal movements be affected? Will there be complexity in paperwork, tariffs and customs? Nobody knows what is going to happen. Some solution has to be found as soon as possible, and the sector needs to know what is happening. We have had silence on these matters for much too long.
There are many other transport issues involved in our exit from the EU that are causing great concern. I have identified just these few issues today because they are critical to the UK’s future. They are important for our trade, for jobs and for the retention of skills, and I urge the Government to get more involved in those sectors and give us more information about what is happening.  These transport issues might not be flagged up in the newspapers every day, but they matter a great deal to our economy and to the people of the UK.

Mims Davies: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). I have written in my notes the words “road”, “rail”, “aviation” and “the water”, and I feel that she and I have some common—perhaps watery—ground on these matters. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House that it is vital to address the issue of climate change, and I shall focus unashamedly today on how that affects my constituency. Anyone who enters Eastleigh will see the words “Tackling climate change” on the sign, but that feels like a strange irony for anyone sitting in queueing traffic there.
Today we are debating the importance of transport in relation to exiting the European Union. I have been contacted by the Irish embassy, as well as by the States of Jersey and Guernsey, about the vital role played by Southampton airport in trading links between those areas and the UK, and we must now consider how we will work with them in a post-Brexit environment.
Today’s autumn statement has sought to tackle infrastructure deficit and improve our productivity. We have heard from the Chancellor that Departments will—rightly, in my view—meet the Government’s objectives by working with Members, communities, local councils and the devolved Administrations to enable them to tackle key decisions on their priorities and projects locally. I welcome this. I have had meetings in my area to discuss what is affecting the gross value added there. I have already indicated to the Secretary of State that the missing infrastructure in my patch is affecting our productivity. My constituency and those of my fellow Hampshire Members are affected by missing junctions on the M27 and queues on the M3, for example, and I know that the Department would like to focus on working with Highways England to make the area a better place for commuting and for getting around.
This week, the Secretary of State spoke to people working with regional airports, and I welcome the feedback that I have had from Southampton airport on his energy and positivity for the sector and for regional airports, which came through very strongly. We have heard questions raised in the Chamber this afternoon about air passenger tax in relation to our exit from the EU. I ask the Secretary of State to continue to work positively in this area, because that does translate and it does matter. Air passenger duty is a key issue for those travelling through my constituency, whether on business or for leisure purposes. Better connectivity from Southampton airport is also key for heading up to Heathrow or Gatwick. I have also heard from the Irish embassy that Ireland is benefiting from the new route between Southampton and Cork, from where passengers can take transatlantic flights. A clearer future, given the opportunities at Heathrow, is important to that connectivity and to my constituency.
Some 50% of people in my patch travel out for work, generally making a journey of around 12 miles. One would think that that is a short journey, but it can often  take about an hour and a half to get from Eastleigh to Southampton or to travel by train between the two cities of Portsmouth and Southampton. I ask Ministers to meet me in due course to look at roads such as the Chickenhall link road, which will tackle pollution and queues, unlock potential sustainable housing sites and provide the opportunity for Southampton airport to get a longer runway, so that bigger planes are able to travel from my patch and people are given a real choice when it comes to getting around.
I am delighted by the opportunities provided by the autumn statement’s infrastructure boost, including, on a basic level for getting around, the seventh successive freeze in fuel duty. Families in my area do not have a choice and must travel by car. East-west connectivity is a challenge and I welcome the continued negotiations on the new rail franchise, because issues with getting between Portsmouth and Southampton in less than an hour are hampering people’s ability to benefit from the opportunities offered by being so close to the port of Southampton. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) that ports are absolutely key. Southampton represents an opportunity for local success for new businesses springing up in Eastleigh. We must continue to consider water safety as we exit the EU. People want to see marine patrols when they are out and about and to feel secure in the post-Brexit environment.
I look forward to working with the local enterprise partnership, Hampshire County Council and other local departments and areas to ensure that Eastleigh continues to grow and thrive given the opportunities provided by the £1.1 billion for local transport networks. I say to the Department for Transport that such funds could be deployed in my patch to help with much-needed connectivity, to battle air pollution and to increase productivity. I welcome this afternoon’s debate and the interesting points made around the Chamber about air passenger duty, ports and connectivity. I look forward to working positively with the Department based on today’s autumn statement and the opportunities for local infrastructure across Hampshire.

Rosie Winterton: As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and other hon. and right hon. Members have made clear in this welcome debate, Brexit has huge implications for our whole transport network, but I want to focus on the rail freight sector. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not include rail freight as one of his priorities, and I suspect that the rail freight industry will be disappointed, too. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope he will reassure us that the Government take the industry’s concerns seriously.
I have previously raised in the House the situation of DB Cargo UK, a company with headquarters in my constituency that has recently announced 893 redundancies. In a letter to the trade union ASLEF, the company said that as well as falling demand from the coal and steel industries, Brexit has caused a slowdown in demand for the movement of freight by rail. I have discussed the problems facing the rail freight industry with the relevant trade unions and also this week met the chief executive officer of DB Cargo UK, Hans-Georg Werner. I hope Members and the Minister will agree that rail freight is  a key service for those doing business in the UK, enabling the import and export of goods through ports and the channel tunnel and, crucially, the movement of goods within the UK. Rail freight depends on the total volume of UK trade as well as the modal share between rail and road. It is a good barometer of the health of the economy as a whole.

Andy McDonald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sustaining the rail freight industry is vital for the maintenance of the infrastructure itself and that we neglect that issue at our peril?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely correct point. That is why we need to use this debate to highlight some of the infrastructure issues we face and to try to tease out of the Minister what the autumn statement might mean for the rail freight industry.
At the moment, the Government are giving little clarity as to what they are looking for from future trade agreements, but it is clear that some options, particularly those with increased trade tariffs, could be challenging for the UK market as a whole and for rail freight in particular. We know that uncertainty about what trade agreements will be reached in those Brexit negotiations is having a detrimental effect on business. The rail freight industry has been especially affected by the slowdown in the construction industry, where there is a nervousness from investors; as we wait for the Government to set out their negotiating position, investment decisions are being put on hold. Whether we are to remain in the customs union and whether we are to maintain access to the single market could have massive impacts on our customs and excise regime, which would naturally have an impact on points of entry, such as ports.
We must also consider the direct impact of European legislation on the rail freight industry. Much railway legislation derives from European law and provides a number of essential protections for rail freight, for example, on track access and charging. It will be vital that these protections continue in any revised legislation. I know the industry considers it essential that a coherent and holistic approach is taken, with any change in law being specifically linked to a change in Government policy for the railways, rather than having piecemeal changes. That applies to legislation on rail freight through the channel tunnel. Many railway standards are also set at European level, particularly technical standards for interoperability, which aim to improve the cost-effectiveness of railways and the ability to operate across Europe. I hope the Minister can assure me that discussions with the industry are being held about any revisions to infrastructure standards, to protect the ability of freight to operate efficiently.
There is a real need for the Government to provide reassurances to the rail freight sector, so that business confidence remains strong and investment is supported. Rail freight operators need confidence to plan ahead, when buying new wagons, for example, investing in new terminals to support future traffic and looking at expanding in areas such as the automotive industry. Again, the Government need to work closely with the rail freight industry to make this happen and deliver solutions that support growth.
One such solution is, of course, HS2, which has the potential not only to provide business for the rail freight industry during construction, but in the longer term to  free up capacity for rail freight. Again, I hope the Minister can assure the House that the Government are talking to the industry about the potential for rail freight in HS2.
There are many other areas of European law that affect the rail freight industry, especially workers’ rights and environmental legislation. Workers’ rights and protection are particularly important in this industry not least because of safety considerations—something of which we are too well aware at the current time. I hope that the Minister can assure me that he is discussing these issues with the relevant trade unions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Committee, made some very good points with regard to environmental legislation. Rail freight is vital in cutting emissions, and we need assurances that, once we have left the European Union, we will mirror agreements under the EU and work actively to help the industry by investing, through Network Rail, in projects that increase capacity, improve connectivity and encourage intermodal solutions to help cut emissions. I hope that, in the process of doing that, we will look across Europe for good examples. In Austria, for instance, I understand that subsidies are available for trains that carry road freight vehicles, and we need to consider whether we should be emulating such practices as we go forward. Will the Minister tell us what planning has been done to improve not only freight productivity, but that link with environmental targets?
On the autumn statement, will the Minister tell us what its implications are for the rail freight industry? I am not sure whether I heard the words “rail freight” mentioned during the statement. I know that the Chancellor said that it will be about departmental decisions, but, again, because the Secretary of State did not mention it in his opening remarks, can the Minister shed a little light on what he thinks the Department is looking at with regard to rail freight, and also what the process will be for coming to those decisions? Investment was talked about, but we need to see that applied to the rail freight industry.
As we have seen today, the process of leaving the European Union will be complicated, fraught with uncertainty and might have considerable unforeseen consequences for our economy’s productive capacity. The need to secure the most advantageous deal for business is understood, but of course the shape of that deal is what will be contested over the coming months. I hope that we can agree that there is an overriding need to reduce uncertainty for business as a whole and for the rail freight sector in particular. It is essential that the Government have serious discussions with the rail freight industry and the unions, which represent those who work in the industry, about the post-Brexit future, so that the best possible outcome of Brexit negotiations can be achieved. Again, I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will be unequivocal about his commitment to openness, transparency and the fullest possible consultation with all those involved in this vital industry.

Stewart McDonald: Well, here we are, four months on from Brexit—[Interruption.] My apologies, it is five months. That is  not a good start. We have heard from several Members about the many challenges that still face us, and I do accept that there will be some opportunities. Let us look at one element of the Government’s transport strategy and what they consider to be an achievement: the deal that they managed to secure with the car manufacturer, Volkswagen, following the emissions cheating scandal. The United States of America will receive around $1.5 billion in compensation from Volkswagen. Last week, the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box, with an enormous grin on his face, heralding the fact that he has managed to secure a miserable £1 million. Madam Deputy Speaker, do not lose heart in the Minister, because he also informed the House that he would receive the cheque in time for Christmas. If that is a success, I do not what a failure looks like. It does not exactly inspire confidence in me when these are the people charged with the Brexit negotiations.

Rob Flello: Did the Minister say which Christmas?

Stewart McDonald: One hopes that it will be this Christmas, I say to my colleague on the Transport Committee.
I wish to focus my remarks on emissions and the vehicle industry. Although there are challenges, there are indeed opportunities in this field, and I do not necessarily mean just in terms of trade, but in terms of the governance of the industry. For too long—I say this as someone who passionately voted to remain in the EU—the industry has been operating in an almost wild west-like culture, where money talks; and it talks quite a lot, particularly for German car manufacturers. For all that we are proud of the British car industry—of course we are—the German car industry has something that we will never have, or the French or Japanese car industry will never have: the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. If we look through the lobbying register, we see that the big German manufacturers spend more on lobbying in Brussels than all the other manufacturers put together—and, my goodness, they get what they are after.

Bill Cash: Is there not a really serious problem with the manner in which the Volkswagen emissions disaster was handled? This is about not just efficiency but manipulation.

Stewart McDonald: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and that is what I am coming to. The Government now have the opportunity to get a new regime on emissions and safety standards that does not allow the kind of manipulation that he mentions to take place. We can have a situation where car manufacturers do not manipulate test vehicles—for example, by taping up air conditioning units, by changing the wheels and by using all sorts of creative means—so that they get around emissions standards. If they can do that in one EU country, they get away with it in all EU countries. Even though we in the United Kingdom have now chosen to leave the EU, the EU must get a grip on that. So here is the opportunity: the Minister and the Department for Transport can now set up a regime that the EU can aspire to. But for over a year now, the Department’s response to this issue does not exactly fill me with confidence. They could do the same with a new safety standards regime. They could create a new gold standard  that even countries such as the United States could aspire to. I guess that the proof of the pudding will ultimately be in the eating.
Members will be familiar with the Vauxhall car fire scandal, with more than 300 Vauxhall Zafira cars catching fire here in the UK. Many of them have done so within about 30 seconds of their engines failing. Let us think about that model of car. The Zafira is a family car. It tends to be used by parents on the school run, during the summer holidays and so on. The people affected tend to have children, and many of them have been in touch with me and other members of the Transport Committee, which has discussed the issue. The Government’s response, in public at least, has almost been to wash their hands of it. I am amazed that the Government are not required to take the issue more seriously. Perhaps we could have new consumer protections relating to vehicle standards, and better compensation standards for consumers. Perhaps we could aspire to standards that even the European Union could aspire to one day.
We do not want to continue with the same system—perhaps EU regulation-lite—whereby we become just another island that is manipulated by an industry in which money talks far too often, and public health interests and consumer interests take a back seat. In addition to all the challenges that the Government face in maritime, freight and air policy, this is one area where the British public are fed up with big business riding roughshod over consumer interests. They will judge the Government on how they respond to the opportunity that Brexit has delivered to put consumers first, rather than to those big vehicle manufacturers.

Ian Paisley Jnr: My constituency voted overwhelmingly—62.2%—to leave the EU, despite the fact that with its large agricultural hinterland it receives huge European farm subsidies, and with its manufacturing base it benefits from the opportunity to manufacture and export to the EU. It also has a huge travel base. It is a tourism mecca, and tourists need travel infrastructure. So it is engaged in manufacturing, travel, tourism and transport goods, but despite all that, it voted to leave the EU, and we must ask ourselves why.
Why would so many people in that set of circumstances vote to leave? Because the EU is seen to be failing them. When we look specifically at transport issues, we can see why. Before we even discuss the EU, there are many things that we could do domestically to assist companies in the transport sector in our country. For example, in my constituency we manufacture buses. The Wrights Group manufactures a considerable number of the buses for this great city and for Scotland—indeed, it recently enjoyed a very beneficial order from Scotland, for which we say thank you to our Scottish cousins. It also manufactures for Singapore and a number of other Asian countries, and employs hundreds of people in Singapore in the assembly of those buses and, importantly, in the maintenance of those buses. It is a significant local employer and a world employer.
The company can benefit more from domestic decisions taken here than it can from EU decisions taken in Brussels. For example, the Government’s Bus Services Bill currently going through Parliament will have a dramatic impact on transport orders for my constituency  if it goes the right way. We also have—I say this very gently to those on the Labour Front Bench—a new Mayor of London. I appeal to him through his Front Bench colleagues to come to Northern Ireland as soon as possible to visit that bus company, which transports his citizens around his city, and see the great work that it could do to expand the bus offer in London. I understand that between now and 2021 London will require another 1,000 buses. I hope that that transport infrastructure will benefit from buses manufactured in my constituency. I wanted to put that on the record before I turn to the substance of the debate.
When the Secretary of State opened the debate, he was full of confidence and optimism. I share that optimism. We should approach the issue of transport and Brexit with some optimism because there are opportunities that can be beneficial to us.
There is one issue that could have been addressed in the Chancellor’s statement today. I hope that the Transport Secretary will continue to whisper “airport passenger duty” in his ear between now and the Budget in April. I hope he will keep pushing that little issue. We should not be paying a pernicious, dirty little tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer just to transport ourselves from one part of the UK to another. It is wrong. It is not the sort of tax that our Government should be levying, and it should be removed soon. I hope that the Chancellor will hear that not just from me but from the Transport Secretary between now and the Budget.
Many people, including our neighbours in the EU, complain about Brexit. We hear it every day and read about it in the newspapers, but those of us who voted to leave the EU did so with a good intention—to bring about good for our country, not bad. I have noticed that those on the remain campaign and those opposed to the action that the United Kingdom is about to take are talking up crisis after crisis—whether a transport crisis or a crisis to do with transport problems with our border in Northern Ireland.
I commend the singular actions of the Secretary of State over the recess. When a crisis emerged in Northern Ireland relating to our one transatlantic fleet operator, United Airlines, it was largely because the Secretary of State got on the telephone to the United States and spoke to the head of the airline and others, pressing them to keep the flights operating in Northern Ireland, that the service was saved.
As a result of the right hon. Gentleman’s conversation with United Airlines and an emergency aid package put in place by the Northern Ireland Executive, involving multiples of millions of pounds, the service was indeed saved—until two weeks ago. Someone in the EU then complained that the actions of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive amounted to state aid and were therefore wrong. They objected so much that Europe has now told United that it must reject the multi-million pound aid package. As a result, the airline is now closing its service; the last flights from Belfast to Newark in the United States of America will take place in January next year. That shameful action needs to go on the record.

Bill Cash: In the ports sector, as in many others, there are hidden subsidies. Ports over the whole of Europe are publicly owned. Given the money pumped into them, they also represent the lack of a level playing  field. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he said and what the Secretary of State tried to achieve.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I agree; the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the fact that the issue extends not only to airports but to seaports as well.
Last week in the House, I pressed the Secretary of State about the United Airlines issue. He kindly said that the decision was “deeply unwelcome” and that a fair amount of effort had been done by his Department, working alongside the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Executive, in trying to make sure that this air route was sustained. He went on to say:
“The loss of the route because of EU action is deeply unwelcome and precisely the kind of unnecessary decision from Brussels that led this country to vote to leave the European Union.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 377.]
I say a hearty “Hear, hear” to those words. That action was pernicious and should not have taken place. The company should have been allowed to continue to operate in Northern Ireland. Many people in County Antrim who have seen the benefits of Europe have turned against it because of such decisions. I am glad that we as a nation have woken up to that.
We have also had the allegation that the Irish Republic—our well-known neighbour—wants to be supportive of Northern Ireland as it leaves the EU. Indeed, it has written to many of the hauliers in Northern Ireland to invite them to a tea party hosted by the Taoiseach in Dublin. He has called it the all-island civic dialogue, and he wishes to have a conversation about the implications of Brexit for the Republic of Ireland. Now, I am quite happy for the Taoiseach to do that, and for him to understand the conversation that is going on, but if he targets businesses in Northern Ireland with a view to getting them to go to the south of Ireland and to crank up opposition to the UK’s decision, that is where I draw the line. I therefore commend the words of our First Minister in Northern Ireland, who said that the Dublin Government are poaching some of our businesses, and that includes our haulage businesses. It is right that this House understands that, while we welcome the opportunity to work with our southern neighbours, we can also see when someone speaks out of both sides of their mouth—on the one hand saying they are concerned about our relationship, but on the other hand doing everything they can to undermine that relationship and poach businesses from us. I think we should put that on the record.
It is also important that we identify those EU transport regulations that hurt British businesses. In an intervention on the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I mentioned the package travel directive. Expedia is an American company that employs over 2,000 people in call centres and outreach centres in the United Kingdom. It is based in England and Scotland, and it will hopefully soon be based in Northern Ireland. That company employs thousands of people, but it is now faced with the package travel directive. Ordinary business and tourism travellers who use sites such as Expedia or trivago as a one-stop shop for their airline ticket, their hotel, their car rental, the shows they wish to attend or other things they wish to book, such as restaurants, will find that this package travel directive, which comes from the EU to protect huge monopolies,  will try to pass on a major charge to the companies—Expedia, trivago or others—or, more than likely, to the customer, because they are using a one-stop shop, when they should apparently be encouraged to use several different operators to place their orders. That package travel directive is wrong, and it should be opposed. That is another reason why many people in the United Kingdom see that, in terms of travel arrangements, we would be better off out of the EU.

Drew Hendry: On the point about additional costs to the travelling public, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the absence of the European health passport would mean an increase in insurance costs for UK customers travelling in Europe?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I do not know whether that is the case, so I cannot say whether it would or not. I would certainly be happy to look at that, but we need to encourage our own insurance industry—perhaps we will have a debate about the insurance industry and Brexit—to pick up those issues to determine whether there is a way in which we can address them.
Companies such as Expedia are faced with this package travel directive. We need to be alive to the fact that Europe is not a great benefactor of the travel sector and that it is actually doing an awful lot to hinder it.

Bill Cash: On the general principle that the hon. Gentleman is addressing—the extent to which directives have an adverse effect on certain industries and the national interests of particular countries—is he conscious, as I certainly am, of what is called regulatory collusion? This has been written about by Professor Roland Vaubel of Mannheim University, who makes it clear that a system is employed in the Council of Ministers and through COREPER whereby decisions are made that benefit certain congregations of countries in a way that is detrimental to others, and that this is not a benign system, but actually the pursuit of national interests in another name.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for making that point. This is about not only helping congregations of countries, but assisting cabals within certain sectors of the industry. For example, the package travel directive helps people who do not use computers to buy their tickets and encourages people to use only shops. I have nothing against travel shops, but they should not be assisted over the heads of people who wish to use the internet to make their bookings. There is a very deliberate attempt to try to destroy that business on the internet.
On road haulage, the Government need to address exporter freight charges. Many of our competitors outside the EU, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and countries in Asia including India, have opportunities to assist the trade in their manufactured goods by reducing the cost of exporting them around the world. In essence, this is about freight charges, not just internally within their own countries, but externally. Our Government need to decide what assistance that system gives and how, when we eventually leave the EU, our companies can have a similar type of assistance or, more importantly, can be encouraged to get round the advantage that those other countries are given.
Let me give the House a few examples. In Australia, the freight equalisation scheme allows for goods shipped around the world to be subsidised when going to their final destinations. That means that a similar good manufactured in New Zealand, for example, suddenly becomes more expensive because its freight charges are included in its shipping, whereas the Australian good has its freight charge subsidised or, in many instances, wiped out. New Zealand opposed Australia when it introduced that scheme, but it is still in place. India has a freight assistance scheme, as well as an enterprise promotion policy, which is about assisting with freight charges.
If these issues of transport costs are not addressed, when we finally leave the EU and have wider export opportunities, we will find that if we try to get our goods—manufactured goods, foods or drinks—to certain markets, they will be disadvantaged because we do not give them a freight subsidy. I know that the Government do not like the word “subsidy” and that they will have to look at this further, but something should be done to assist with those transport costs. It is important that the Government have that in their mind.
I welcome the debate and the comments by the Secretary of State. It is useful that we continue to prod and examine these issues.

Alan Brown: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but I am feeling a wee bit dizzy because I am not usually so high up the speakers’ list. It is also confusing that there is no limit on our speaking time. Clearly one of the reasons why I have been called so early is the real lack of Back Benchers in the Chamber. Given how many people have told us how bad Europe is and about all the wonderful opportunities that there will be following Brexit, I would have thought that Members would be queuing up to tell us about those opportunities.

Bill Cash: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is about to become a member of my European Scrutiny Committee, so I simply say that I entirely endorse what he has said. Furthermore, many of the remoaners, and the doomsters and gloomsters, are not here defending the positions that they were taking before—I am not just referring to SNP Members. That is where a lot of the problems lie.

Alan Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Clearly we are part of the remainers, and we represent our constituents. The majority of our constituents across Scotland voted to remain, so we must represent them.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made a bit of a play of highlighting opportunities, but really he highlighted some of the problems with the European Union rather than proper opportunities. He seemed to put a lot of faith in the myth that the Government will invest the money that will not be going to Europe. He trusts the Conservative Government to invest that money. He used the word “subsidy”, although he knows full well that no Tory Government ever volunteer to pay money for subsidies.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. I will focus on road transport, but just before I do, I want to go back to the open skies debate. Prestwick airport, which is in one  of my neighbouring constituencies, is a big employer for my area as well as for the constituency it is based in. It would be good if the Minister would confirm that Brexit will not affect Ryanair’s flights from Prestwick and tell us what the Government will do to mitigate any effects. I will throw out one opportunity for Prestwick—to be fair, this is not to do with the European Union—which is its potential as a spaceport. It is high time the Government made a decision about that.
As I said, I will focus on road transport. The Secretary of State said quite correctly in his opening speech that road transport affects us all. Given the proportion of goods that are transported by road to shops, road transport is fundamental to the price of goods. According to Government figures, almost three times as many goods are moved by road as are moved by rail and water combined, which shows us that road is the transport king.
That brings us to the question: what has the EU done for road transport? Apart from the harmonisation of licensing, the harmonisation of vehicle design, European Union-wide regulations for the transport of goods, workers’ rights legislation such as the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005, the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, and funding for road schemes in Scotland, the EU has not done much to help road transport.
What else has the EU given us? Apparently, as the guys who are not here continually tell us, the EU has given us endless red tape and regulation. Let us look at how the EU has actually meddled in the pan-European transport of goods by road—this point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). In 1998, a lorry travelling from Milan to London required 88 separate documents. The EU got involved, and after much wrangling, the number of documents now required is one. The number has gone from 88 down to one—that is the red tape that the EU has created for the transport of goods across Europe. In the 1980s, there were 100,000 sets of technical regulations across the member states. Thanks to the EU, they have been consolidated, and there is now one set of EU-level regulations.
We heard about ports earlier. Ports are integral to the import and export of goods for road haulage. As we have heard, ports handle 90% of the UK’s trade. Leaving the EU means that there is a risk that instead of a seamless journey on and off a ferry, there could be extended customs checks, which will slow progress. As we have heard, the infrastructure is not geared up for that, which could mean that ports will require additional parking. Some of the checks need to be repeated for each country that a lorry traverses. Given that the World Bank estimates that the customs clearance process for a single freight container adds around a day to the import process, it is clear that we could face a massive cost and logistics nightmare. Will the Minister therefore confirm that he is fighting for access to the single market and the customs union?
According to the Treasury’s figures, EU membership is estimated to increase trade with EU members by between 68% and 85%. I know that there has been a whole debate about how inflated the figures might or might not be, but even if they are inflated, they still show that there is huge benefit from our membership of the single market.
Has the Secretary of State and/or the Minister discussed the customs union with the automotive industry? At the moment, car components criss-cross the continent before returning for use in final assembly at car plants, so the customs union is a major positive for the automotive industry. The industry is completely appalled by the lackadaisical argument that simply claims that no tariffs will be applied because of the importance of the UK market. It has confirmed that tariffs are its No. 1 concern, so will the Minister touch on that when he sums up?
Nearly 300,000 HGV drivers were employed in the road haulage industry last year. In April 2015, only 1,165 jobseekers recorded their standard occupation as HGV driver, so it is clear that a HGV driver qualification is a pathway to full employment. Even so—we touched on this earlier—the road haulage industry is having to take advantage of EU nationals, using licence harmonisation, to plug the skills gap. There is a predicted shortage of 40,000 HGV drivers by 2020 and the Government do not challenge that figure. That situation will only get worse unless there is a post-Brexit reciprocal licensing arrangement.
I have repeatedly called for the Government to implement a grant scheme to allow small haulage companies to train new HGV drivers. Such a scheme would pay for itself from welfare savings. To date, I have heard nothing from the Government. The Secretary of State said that the idea was with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who is responsible for skills in the Department for Transport, but it is time we started hearing some concrete plans.
The last key topic I will touch on is road funding, which is particularly relevant to Scotland. Another dividend of the UK Union that we suffered from in Scotland for many years was a lack of investment in our road systems. It has taken an SNP Government coming to power to really push that agenda, in particular with the new M74 and M80 motorways, and the ongoing £500 million M8, M74 and M73 upgrades. It is ridiculous to think that there has never been a continuous motorway connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow; the SNP Government are having to rectify that.

Drew Hendry: It is not just the motorways my hon. Friend mentions that were neglected for a long time; many connections to rural Scotland such as the A9 were given no attention. The Scottish Government are now dualling the entire A9 between Perth and Inverness.

Alan Brown: I welcome that example and will come on to another shortly.
Investment for the current motorway upgrades came from the European Investment Bank, which drew in other international investment. Will such avenues for investment still be available at affordable rates to the Scottish Government in the future? It would be good if the Minister could provide some clarity on that.
Anyone who has travelled to the highlands will know how many roads there are still single track, with passing places for oncoming vehicles. Those roads are lifelines. One example is the Fort William-Mallaig road, the road to the isles, which was completed as a two-lane carriageway only in 2009; previously, it was known as the worst trunk road in Europe. That shows the lack of investment  that came to us from Westminster. The upgrade was completed partly with European funding. The allocation included £3 million from the European regional development fund, as well as European transitional fund assistance. That is proof that the EU managed to get money to Scotland that would not have come from direct funding.
Scotland secured a total investment of €941 million from the European structural fund in the 2014 to 2020 programming period. Of that, £14 million has been allocated to the low-carbon travel and transport strategic intervention programme, which helps to fund low-carbon transport hubs and active travel hubs, and £10 million is being invested in the smart cities strategic intervention. ERDF money has also been allocated to Strathclyde Partnership for Transport for various public transport upgrades. What will happen to the money that has not yet been allocated? Again, we do not know, as there are no guarantees from the Government. It is time they started to provide some certainty. The Scotsman reported a couple of days ago that councils in Scotland were worried about the possibility of losing £46 million of EU funding each year. Much of that money goes to local transport-related projects.
I mentioned travel in the highlands earlier and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) touched on it, too. One common sight is busloads of tourists traversing the country. Many rights of passengers, particularly in relation to disabled passengers, are incorporated in regulations covered by EEA membership. Tour operators entering Scotland and the wider UK may choose not to enter the country in the future because EU passengers might not want to have to apply for a visa as part of a tour package.
It can be argued that many of these issues are not insurmountable, but the fact is that 8% of all travel in the EU in 2014 was attributed to buses and coaches, with 6.5% to rail. The Department for Transport gave very little consideration to buses in its “Balance of Competencies” report released ahead of the referendum, despite the volume of regulations in place to protect coach passengers within the EU.
It is clear that EU directives have made our roads safer and protected the rights of HGV drivers. They have made the transport of goods easier, and therefore cheaper, within the customs union. The free movement of goods and people in conjunction with the licence harmonisation process has been vital for the haulage industry. Without it, there would have been market failure by now. There has even been harmonisation of the blue badge system for people with disabilities. Will that be reciprocated post-Brexit? As I outlined, the EU has contributed funds for much-needed road upgrades in Scotland. It is high time the Government understood that Brexit means a lot more than Brexit, and that we want clarity.

Rob Flello: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am delighted that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), is back in his place, as I just want to point out to him that the  much-thumbed Library briefing paper I have been referring to is from 29 June, rather than the one in the Library now.
This issue, on a critical industry, is of great importance. I normally find, when I am called to speak so low down on the list, that almost everything I want to say has already been said. However, one thing that has not been said so far is that we are approximately five-and-a-half weeks away from Christmas. The logistics industry makes Christmas happen. It delivers everything. Yes, of course Santa has his part to play, but without the logistics industry the turkeys, the presents and everything else would not happen. We should put on record what we owe to the people in the industry.
During an intervention earlier I talked about staffing. I am concerned about the level of staffing available in the Department for Transport to consider these important issues. The Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, magazines such as Motor Transport and others are doing a lot of work on the implications of Brexit for some, if not all, of the industry, and I believe they stand ready to help the Department.
As the Minister is in his place, I want to pause to thank him again for the wide-ranging roundtable discussion on skills the other day—a really positive sign for how we can move the whole agenda forward.
I do not want to miss an opportunity to taunt the hon. Member for Stone one more time, so let me say that what has come out of discussions with various sectors of the industry is that a lot of EU legislation is legislation that we wanted in the first place, and, if Members will pardon the pun, it is legislation that we drove forward. The great repeal Bill will not be a great repeal so much as a great domesticisation—if that is a word. It is now.
I will just make a couple of points, rather than delay the House by repeating what has been said many times. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency needs more teeth, particularly when we are exiting the EU. At the moment, there are issues with non-UK hauliers. The Minister kindly wrote to me recently about cabotage and access to the database for the DVSA. The response, with the greatest respect, is not clear. At the moment, a lot of vehicles stopped are not flouting cabotage rules. The DVSA does not have sufficient access to the database to spot the right hauliers. It is just a bit random at the moment.

John Hayes: I am very happy to continue that dialogue and the roundtables, mindful of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Rob Flello: I am very grateful. I know that the Minister takes these issues seriously. The DVSA needs more powers to tackle non-UK hauliers, particularly post-Brexit.
Several colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Select Committee, have talked about vehicle standards, and the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) talked about standards shopping. It is important that we have a common standard, but it is also important that we stop standards shopping. We should also revisit HGV licensing. Rather than the over-complicated system of C+E licences and all the rest, perhaps it would be better  to go back to class 1 and class 2. The certificate of professional competence is another issue that has caused the industry a lot of concerns, problems and difficulties. It is now much more embedded in its culture, but much more work needs to be done in the context of post-Brexit.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun—I have been waiting hours to say that, although I do not know if I have pronounced it anywhere near correctly—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Have another go: Kil-marn-ock and Loud-oun. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tried very hard. It is not his fault he did not get it quite right.

Rob Flello: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown)—[Laughter.] Thank you.

Calum Kerr: It’s not Welsh!

Rob Flello: I’m an eighth Welsh actually. But I am conscious of time and do not wish to go down this cul-de-sac any further.
The point about the 88 documents in one is a good one, but there is no reason post-Brexit why we cannot do our utmost to make sure that it is still only one document. That is an important point.
On HS2, I am afraid that I am not such a great fan. [Interruption.] I know it’s hard to be believe. One of my concerns is that, as I understand it, rail freight will not be allowed on the tracks currently being used for HS2. I also have great doubts about whether we can free up enough capacity on other lines, such as the west coast main line. How, for example, will people get from Stoke-on-Trent to Bournemouth? It will be a tortuous journey if they have to take HS2 into London, only to get another train out, rather than using the current service, which will be cut to free up capacity.
There are big issues on road worthiness and tachos, as they relate to the DVSA. It is also important to note that many firms are hiding behind Brexit over things such as fuel costs and blaming Brexit and the dropping pound for keeping the price of fuel artificially high. I urge the Government to take on board the concerns from organisations such as FairFuelUK about the price of fuel.
I will not dwell on the port services directive. It has been dealt with more than is necessary already. On the security of our border, there have been issues around Sangatte at Calais and, more recently, the Jungle at Calais. This problem might well recur in the future so we need to make sure that we have a good relationship with the French, particularly in northern France.
Members have raised a host of other things, but, you will be delighted to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not wish to repeat them. I do, however, wish to draw attention to the issue of state aid. In the past, we have seen many airlines funded by other European nations flouting state aid rules, paying the penalty but saving their airlines in the meantime. All too often there has been a willingness among some of our European counterparts to flout state aid rules when it suits them, get the desired outcome and then face the consequences, when, frankly, it is irrelevant, because the issue has been resolved.
I will not detain the House any longer. I am keen to hear the Front-Bench responses, and I think there is one more speaker before that. I go back to my opening comments: the logistics industry is not just important or fairly fundamental to the UK; it is the UK. Without the logistics sector, the UK would cease to exist, nothing would happen; the clothes we wear, the food we eat—it would all end. So we have to accept the fact that transport is absolutely at the heart of the UK. We need to make sure that, post-Brexit, we get the best possible deal for the transport sector.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in his winding-up speech. I hope that, like me, he takes to his heart the fact that the transport sector—and, for me, logistics in particular—is the UK’s first and foremost industry. We have to make sure that it is protected. Let us get to work on it, taking help from wherever it is offered.

Stephen Gethins: Having sat through this debate, it has to be said that, once again, we are not much further forward. That applies to transport as it does to every portfolio area. To be fair, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) providing an all too rare progressive view from the Conservative Benches on maintaining membership of the single market. After all, that is critical for Scotland’s economy and for the UK’s economy, just as the four freedoms are critical for future success. These areas are vital for growth when this reckless gamble is putting our country at risk.
I give credit where credit is due, and it has been good to see in his place the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) standing up for his beliefs as usual. Seeing him in his place is all too rare these days, as it is for others who backed the campaign to leave. It is very much a tale of two Governments in these islands. North of the border we have had a Government making clear their plans on membership of the single market, freedom of movement and the status of European nationals who contribute so much to our economy. That compares with the continued nothing that we have seen from the United Kingdom Government.
The Secretary of State, who is not in his place—I apologise, he seems to have returned—has to bear some responsibility. He was a member of a Government who campaigned to leave the European Union, yet did absolutely no preparation for the decision that was eventually taken. That was an act of gross irresponsibility during the campaign, and it continues because he has nothing to say five months on.
I have in my hand an example of what preparation looks like—670 pages of a White Paper prepared during the independence referendum.

Alberto Costa: rose—

Stephen Gethins: I knew the hon. Gentleman would not be able to resist.

Alberto Costa: Would the hon. Gentleman like to tell the Secretary of State and other Members what currency Scotland would have used had it voted for independence?

Stephen Gethins: Here we go! We were so well prepared that that is not just in the White Paper—I know the hon. Gentleman has read it—but we even had a fiscal  commission working group. We had 670 pages of the White Paper and a fiscal commission working group setting out three options, including sharing the currency, which one Minister said that we would, of course, be able to do—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, that compares to tumbleweed—absolutely nothing—from the Government.
The Secretary of State might want to take notes, because there were 15 pages on transport alone in our White Paper. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) will be pleased to hear, it set out the areas for high-speed rail. It makes much more sense if high-speed rail goes through to Edinburgh and Glasgow, rather than just to Birmingham. The benefits of specialist transport organisations were mentioned, too.

Ian Paisley Jnr: How many of the 600 and more pages started with the words “could”, “maybe” or “might”?

Stephen Gethins: To be fair, a lot more than in the Government’s plans about the EU referendum. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point on that, as usual. There were a lot more “coulds”, “woulds” or “maybes” than in the Government’s preparatory documents.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will be pleased to hear that the Government must have been reading our White Paper, because there was talk about the benefits of transitional agreements. Clearly, on the basis of recent press reports of the Government’s plans, they are taking to heart ideas about transitional agreements, which have come straight from the White Paper on Scottish independence. There is also talk about working with our European partners and the EU, where it has responsibility. Of course, Government Members told us that if people voted for Scottish independence, we would not be in the European Union and that the only way to guarantee membership was to vote no. What happened there? The point is that co-operating with Europe is vital.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) has returned to the Chamber. She raised the critical issues of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. In the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we have many reasons to be grateful for co-operation with our European partners. Everyone who has survived this debate so far continues to benefit from the European Union air quality directives every moment of every day. As for climate change, Scotland’s world-leading Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which smashed its targets when Conservative Members said we could not achieve them, is much closer to Brussels policy than legislation in this place. We have allies and friends who take a similar view.
There is also an important point to be made about the single market. As the Member of Parliament representing, for instance, Pittenweem, Oban and Peterhead, I notice that articulated lorries from European Union countries take fine Scottish seafood to markets across the EU. Driver licensing for EU nationals is especially important in rural areas, be they in the borders, in North East Fife, in Northern Ireland or in the highlands. We want to make those people feel at home, because they contribute so much. Will that licensing continue? Will we continue to have the harmonisation that we have enjoyed?
Our geography in Scotland makes airports and air links very important to us, and I am delighted that the Scottish Government have managed to secure 23 new routes since 2014. We benefit from that, and so do other people. Who would not want to spend their holidays in North East Fife? I am sure that you would, Madam Deputy Speaker, and have done so as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out that Prestwick was nearby. Just the other day, Michael O’Leary said that the UK Government did not have a clue, and it is hard to disagree with him.
European funding for research and development has been and continues to be critical. We need to develop clean, green technologies, and Scotland is well placed for that. Currently, Horizon 2020 has a smart, green and integrated transport fund which is worth €6.5 billion. We need to start planning now for what will happen after 2020. Perhaps Ministers will provide certainty by telling us what their plans are.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that Scotland is closer to Brussels in so many policy areas. Transport is just one of them.

Jenny Chapman: In transport, as in virtually every other area of policy, challenges are presented by the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) did an excellent job in outlining some of the issues, notably rail freight. May I say what a pleasure it is to hear her voice ring out in the Chamber again? I am sure that her constituents, as well as all Members, welcome it.
Fascinatingly, the Transport Secretary has said that transport will be prioritised in Brexit negotiations. His comment suggests that the Government have developed a plan. If the Government have set such a priority and have decided which areas of policy concern them most, perhaps they could share the outcome of their deliberations with the House of Commons. The British people want to know.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said that the Government’s plan was an empty vessel, a point well made. He referred to the Titanic and the Mary Celeste. We must ensure that, unlike those fated vessels, the good ship Brexit sails safely into harbour, although I expect that the waters are likely to be choppy. A failure to conclude negotiations of a deal within the article 50 timetable of two years would be catastrophic for British industry. The Government do not give the impression that they accept this reality and the seriousness of this threat. Will the Minister confirm that he wants to establish a transitional agreement with the EU to prevent aviation and other industries from going over a cliff edge? My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) rightly challenged the Government to explain whether transport will be negotiated in isolation or as part of a wider deal. Not only do we not know what is going to be done, but we do not know how it is to be done either.
Aviation agreements are not covered under the scope of the World Trade Organisation, so there is no WTO deal to fall back on if a specific aviation agreement is not reached. It is vital that our regional airports, which rely heavily on overseas carriers for international routes,  are fully involved in all future negotiations to ensure that the wider interests of the regions are not overlooked. Will the Minister confirm that this will happen?
On our railways, there is a danger that funding gaps will not be filled. UK rail projects receive EU funding as direct funding or as loans. Will the Government commit to match this funding penny for penny? In response to a series of interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), we watched the Secretary of State twitching on the end of a line, and I advise him that my hon. Friend is unlikely to let this issue go. I can guarantee that the Secretary of State will not hear the end of it.

Chris Elmore: On the Welsh context of what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) raised and also on road infrastructure, EU funding has been a huge asset for heads of the valleys roads and roads across south Wales. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) agree that it is important that the Department for Transport secures that funding for road infrastructure so that the Welsh Government can continue to deliver those improvements for roads across the south Wales valleys?

Jenny Chapman: That is completely right, and I think the First Minister for Wales—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—has requested that the funding promised will be matched penny for penny. Or will this cash go the same way as the £350 million a week for the NHS, and disappear like a smoke ring from one of Nigel Farage’s cigars?
Rail fares have gone up by over a quarter since the Tories came to power in 2010, which is more than twice as fast as wage growth. There is a danger that the economic consequences of Brexit will mean yet another fare hike for commuters. What are the Government prepared to do to stop fares becoming even less affordable for passengers?
I am going to give credit for this next statistic to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello): over 90% of UK international trade in weight passes through UK ports. UK ports directly employ more than 25,000 people and the sector contributes more than £7 billion to the UK economy. Like every other sector, our ports need to know how the Government intend to proceed. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) explained that the proposed port services regulations are deeply unpopular with UK ports, but it is far from clear that the UK leaving the EU will mean that our ports are not going to be subject to these regulations all the same. In fact, the UK Government’s ability to influence the regulations to suit British ports is now virtually nil. How are the Government going to protect our magnificent ports sector?
Similarly, our road haulage sector faces uncertainty as a result of Brexit, and there is no one with more passion for this issue than my hon. Friend. He challenged the Government to ensure that they are adequately staffed to support the haulage sector through the Brexit period.
I do not want to be negative about Brexit, but we are kidding ourselves by pretending that these challenges do not exist or are somehow straightforward to resolve. We need to be up front and honest with the British  people about this. The Government should perhaps use these debates to inform the House, and also perhaps do so through the publication of position papers beforehand outlining the Government’s priorities. Today’s debate has been interesting, but I do not think that anyone will leave the Chamber any clearer about the Government’s position on these issues. We are not going to obstruct article 50. We have made that commitment very clear, but I suggest to the Minister that there is now a moral imperative for the Government to act in good faith and to share their priorities and plans with the British people and with this House.

David Jones: This has been an excellent debate and I should like to express my personal thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. It is clear that everyone realises the centrality of transport to our economy, and it is therefore entirely right that the issue should be debated at length and in detail today. This has been the second in a series of debates on important issues arising in the context of the negotiations to leave the European Union which were promised by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. It will help to inform our consideration of these important issues as we prepare for the negotiations.

Jenny Chapman: If these debates are so valuable and informative, perhaps the Minister could give the House an example of how his considerations will have been moved on by what he has heard today.

David Jones: The hon. Lady will find that out as I proceed with my response. She has to understand that at the moment we are engaged in a process of consultation with not only colleagues here in Parliament but representatives of industry and the wider civil society. Frankly, anyone sensible would expect the Government to be engaging in this sort of consultation and I make no apologies for doing so.
As the Secretary of State for Transport made clear, the Government fully recognise the central role that transport will play. Our transport links with Europe—and, indeed, the rest of the world—are crucial to this nation’s prosperity, and as we develop a new relationship with the EU, we are determined to maintain efficient networks that build on the excellent connectivity that we already have around the world. This debate has certainly highlighted some of the challenges that this country faces in the process of the negotiations, but it has also highlighted opportunities. As I have said, this has been an important exercise in helping to inform our position.
I want to touch on some of the important issues that have been raised. My hon. Friend made a point about the port services regulation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the Commission’s proposal in relation to the regulation was clearly aimed at the continental subsidised public sector landlord model and did not sit at all well with the United Kingdom’s thoroughly commercial, diverse and predominantly private sector model. In effect, the United Kingdom’s ports stood to be penalised for having led the way in liberalisation since the 1980s. Our experience shows that competition between ports drives efficiency and investment.
We have engaged successfully with the European institutions to prevent our being penalised in that way, and the near-final text of the regulation is considerably less onerous that what was first proposed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, this is a good example of how Brexit will enable us to regain control over issues that are important to the UK economy. We must also remember that we will be promoting the great repeal Bill. When enacted, it will absorb the entire corpus of EU law into the body of British law, which will enable us to review that law and repeal or amend it as appropriate. I imagine that he will regard this particular regulation as being ripe for repeal.

Stewart McDonald: Will the Minister tell us how many of them will relate to transport?

David Jones: That will of course be a matter for this Parliament. This is about the entire issue of regaining control, which we do not have at the moment. Once we regain control, it will be this Parliament that makes such decisions.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) exhibited a nice line in transport-related puns, for which I compliment him. He raised the important issue of the effects of leaving the EU on business and travellers. My Department is currently engaging closely with businesses right across this sector and 50 others with a view to gauging their concerns and the opportunities. I apologise that I cannot respond to all the issues he mentioned, but trans-Atlantic routes was an important one. I recently had an interesting discussion with Airlines for America, which clearly has an equal interest in the matter from the other direction. That is an example of the fact that third countries will also play a part in the process. As part of the Department’s consultation, we are engaging with interlocutors not only from Britain, but from the continent and third countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) raised several issues, including vehicle emissions. EU environmental law will be fully absorbed into our own corpus of law and we can then decide what arrangements we make with regard to that legislation, including confirming it if necessary.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who chairs the Transport Committee, referred to several important matters, some of which I will touch on. She asked what would be the future arrangements for setting standards for new vehicles, and the Department for Transport is focused on that question. Many vehicle standards are actually shaped in United Nations bodies, and the EU absorbs them into EU law. That process would therefore be absorbed into our domestic law as part of the great repeal Bill process. She mentioned access to the single market, which remains a top priority for the Government. We want to secure the best possible access to the single market—consistent with our other priorities as a Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) raised several important constituency issues, including Southampton airport. She welcomed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s infrastructure announcements, which will provide a major boost for this country’s transport infrastructure.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) focused her remarks on rail freight. We recognise that rail freight is an important part of the issue that we are considering today, and I can tell her that representatives of the rail freight industry have participated at round-table discussions held with the rail industry more generally by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.

Rosie Winterton: Are Ministers also having meetings with the trade unions who represent members in the rail freight industry?

David Jones: What I can say is that the Department encourages the trade unions, as it does every other part of the community, to contribute to the consultation that we are currently holding. I suggest that the right hon. Lady encourages them to contact us.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), who pronounced himself to be a passionate supporter of the remain campaign, made a remarkably Eurosceptic speech, in which he raised the issue of Volkswagen and what he described as a “scandal”—many in this House would agree with that. As I have said previously, when the great repeal Bill comes through, the EU legislation will be absorbed into our own body of legislation and we can then amend it. It will be up to this Parliament to decide whether it wishes to improve on the current arrangements, and I discern from his remarks that that is something he would welcome.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made an upbeat speech, in which he identified a number of opportunities arising from Brexit. He raised the issue of the package travel directive, and all I would say in response is that we are aiming at a new state of affairs, under which this Parliament can make decisions such as that and not simply accept the directives that come from the EU.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the Minister at a point yet to make a commitment that that directive will never come into force?

David Jones: Forgive me, I did not hear the question.

Ian Paisley Jnr: As a person called Paisley, I have never once been told that no one can hear me—I apologise profusely. Can the Minister make a commitment at this point, or at some time in the future, that that directive will never come into force?

David Jones: I think the answer to that is that it depends on how quickly we complete our withdrawal from the EU and on what this Parliament decides to do. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be a strong advocate for its non-acceptance of that directive.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) made a contribution relating, inter alia, to the spaceport that he hopes will be located at Prestwick. I had ambitions for north Wales, but I am sure we will both be happy wherever it is located. He also raised the issues of road freight and customs checks, both of which are certainly being taken into account by my Department and by the Department for Transport in the context of our EU exit negotiations.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) raised the issue of the importance of logistics. I understand that he is the chairman of the all-party group on freight transport, and he has raised a number of these issues in round-table meetings that have been arranged by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who has undertaken to maintain that dialogue.
Finally, we heard a contribution from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who spoke about the Scottish referendum.
This has been an important and valuable debate. As I say, it has helped to inform the consideration of my Department and the DFT, and we will continue to hold similar engagements both within this Parliament and with stakeholders from outside the EU. [Interruption.] I make no apologies—I hear the catcalls from Labour Front Benchers—for the fact that this Government are giving proper consideration to the process of withdrawal from the EU. I believe that this Government—

Jenny Chapman: rose—

David Jones: No, I will not give way. Forgive me; I am near the end of my time.

Jenny Chapman: There is loads of time.

David Jones: No, nevertheless. Today’s announcements have demonstrated the commitment of this Government to investing in transport in the UK to help deliver growth and economic security for the whole of the UK. This will remain the case after we leave the EU. The UK remains open for business and industry continues to invest in the UK, as demonstrated by recent announcements such as Associated British Ports’ investment of £50 million in vehicle-handling facilities at the port of Southampton. We will do our best to ensure that transport remains central to our consideration of the issues that arise in the context of our departure from the EU. Once again, I thank hon. Members for their contributions today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered exiting the EU and transport.

Alistair Carmichael: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance in relation to a matter, notice of which I have given to Mr Speaker and, indeed, to the Foreign Office. Yesterday, during Foreign Office questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), in answer to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), concerning the demolition in the Negev of Umm al-Hiran in Israel, said:
“I will be looking at this particular announcement and making a statement on this later today.”
—[Official Report, 22 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 749.]
At about half-past 6 yesterday evening, my office made an inquiry of the Minister’s office and was told that a statement would be issued as soon as possible. We were told the same thing this morning. We were then told that, in fact, it would be media statement. At about 5 o’clock, when my office phoned again to give notice that I intended to raise this as a point of order, a very short press release was put on to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website.
The point on which I seek your guidance is this: is a Minister in compliance with his or her duties to the House by saying that he or she will make a statement and then issuing a press release, given what Mr Speaker has said in the past about the House being told first before the media?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He and the House know that it is not a point on which I can make a ruling from the Chair, because, of course, the way in which statements are made by Ministers is ultimately a matter for the Minister himself or herself, but I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. He has effectively drawn the matter to the attention of the House and, I hope, rather more widely, because it is a sensitive and important matter. Mr Speaker has said many times in the past that, when a Minister has something to day, it ought to be said first to the House. I cannot make a judgment or a ruling about the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises, but one would hope that if a Minister has given an undertaking to come to the House with certain information, he will do so at some point. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this sensitive issue to the attention of the House.

PETITION - NORFOLK ISLAND

Andrew Rosindell: I rise to present a petition to the House for no fewer than 866 of Her Majesty’s most loyal subjects who live in the Australian external territory of Norfolk Island. I know that you support Norfolk Island, Madam Deputy Speaker, having visited the territory some years ago. Today’s petition coincides with this year’s visit to Norfolk Island by me and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). We visited the island to see what is happening about the right of self-governance being removed from the people of that territory.
As hon. Members will know, we cherish the fact that territories and dependencies should have the right of self-determination. As we uphold that for our territories, so should Australia uphold it for the people of Norfolk Island. The petition also coincides with the visit to the United Kingdom of the former Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, the Hon. Andre Nobbs, and the President of the Council of Elders of Norfolk Island, Mr Albert Buffett.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that on behalf of residents of Norfolk Island, there is an identified historical, cultural, legal and constitutional relationship which Norfolk Island and the Norfolk Island people have celebrated since 1856 with the United Kingdom and the British people.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Government to support the people of Norfolk Island to be able to uphold their right of self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter specific to decolonisation and humbly request the same right of self-determination as afforded to the people of the British Overseas territories.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001982]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn. —(Andrew Griffiths.)
House adjourned.